Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 246 views

    Paciente Vs Dacuycuy Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Isabel Higgins
    The respondent court ordered the cancellation of the petitioner's land title and issuance of a new title including the minors as co-owners. This was because: 1) The minors inherited the land from their father and their mother sold the land without court authority. 2) The sale to the petitioner was therefore illegal. 3) The respondent court has jurisdiction to protect minors and their property rights. However, the first order requiring additional payment was void for failing to determine proper valuation.

    Copyright:

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

    Paciente Vs Dacuycuy Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Isabel Higgins
    246 views2 pages
    The respondent court ordered the cancellation of the petitioner's land title and issuance of a new title including the minors as co-owners. This was because: 1) The minors inherited the land from their father and their mother sold the land without court authority. 2) The sale to the petitioner was therefore illegal. 3) The respondent court has jurisdiction to protect minors and their property rights. However, the first order requiring additional payment was void for failing to determine proper valuation.

    Original Title

    Paciente vs Dacuycuy case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondent court ordered the cancellation of the petitioner's land title and issuance of a new title including the minors as co-owners. This was because: 1) The minors inherited the land from their father and their mother sold the land without court authority. 2) The sale to the petitioner was therefore illegal. 3) The respondent court has jurisdiction to protect minors and their property rights. However, the first order requiring additional payment was void for failing to determine proper valuation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    246 views2 pages

    Paciente Vs Dacuycuy Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Isabel Higgins
    The respondent court ordered the cancellation of the petitioner's land title and issuance of a new title including the minors as co-owners. This was because: 1) The minors inherited the land from their father and their mother sold the land without court authority. 2) The sale to the petitioner was therefore illegal. 3) The respondent court has jurisdiction to protect minors and their property rights. However, the first order requiring additional payment was void for failing to determine proper valuation.

    Copyright:

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

    Paciente vs.

    Dacuycuy Case Digest

    Facts:

     Leonardo Homares died in 1972 leaving a parcel of land totaling 1701 sq. m. situated in
    Sagkahan, Tacloban City to his wife, Lilia Samson Homeres and two minor children, Shirley and
    Leandro.
     On September 9, 1976, Lilia sold the lot to Conchita Dumdum for P10,000.00. She subsequently
    applied for petition of guardianship over the persons and estate of the minors at the Juvenile
    and Domestic Relations Court of Leyte.
     On September 21, 1977, Conchita Dumdum sold the lot to petitioner, Patricia Paciente for the
    amount of P15,000.00. Petitioner then mortgaged the lot to Consolidated Bank and Trust
    Corporation for P30,000.00.
     In 1980, the Acting City Register of Deeds of Tacloban City, informed the Juvenile and Domestic
    Relations Court of Leyte that the said property which is the subject of the guardianship
    proceedings has already been registered in the name of the petitioner. It appears that the said
    property had been purchased without authority of the court.
     The petitioner and the manager of the bank was ordered to appear before the court however,
    they failed to do so. Instead, Conchita Dumdum and the petitioner’s husband appeared and
    explained that the petitioner was an innocent purchaser for value of the lot in question.
     Respondent court issued an order requiring petitioner and Conchita Dumdum to deposit with
    the clerk of court an additional P10,000.00 as consideration for the said lot however, they both
    failed to comply. Because of this, a second order was issued by the court directing the Register
    of Deeds to cancel the Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the petitioner and to issue a
    new title to include the minors as co-owners of the petitioner.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the respondent court has jurisdiction to order the Register of Deeds to cancel the title of
    the petitioner and order a new title to include the minors as co-owners of the subject property.

    Ruling:

    Yes, the respondent court has jurisdiction to order the Register of Deeds and it did not exceed it but
    merely exercised its duty to protect persons under disability.

     Citing the cases of Cui vs. Piccio and Parco vs. Bautista, the Supreme Court stated that where
    title to any property said to be embezzled, concealed or conveyed is in question, the
    determination of the said title or right whether in favor of the ward or in favor of the person
    said to have embezzled, concealed or conveyed the property must be determined in a separate
    ordinary action and not in guardianship proceedings. However, if the right or title of the ward to
    the property is clear and indisputable, the court may issue an order directing its delivery or
    return.
     In this case, the right or title of the two minors to the property is clear and indisputable. The sale
    of the land that they inherited by their mother without the authority of the guardianship court is
    deemed illegal. Hence, the second order by the respondent court is correct.
     On the other hand, the first order of the respondent court directing the deposit of an additional
    consideration of P10,000.00 needs to conduct further hearing for the valuation of the property
    in question hence, it is null and void.

    You might also like