Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 137 views

    Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Bolaños, GR L-4935, May 28, 1954, 95 Phil. 106

    Uploaded by

    Gia Dimayuga
    This case involves a dispute over possession of 13 hectares of registered land between Tuason & Co., Inc. and Bolaños. Tuason & Co. amended its complaint three times to accurately describe the disputed land based on surveys. Bolaños claimed title through adverse possession for over time immemorial. The court ruled that Bolaños' adverse possession could not invalidate Tuason & Co.'s Torrens title, as the land had been registered under Tuason & Co. since 1914, more than one year prior. Under the Land Registration Act, adverse possession cannot supersede a registered Torrens title.

    Copyright:

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

    Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Bolaños, GR L-4935, May 28, 1954, 95 Phil. 106

    Uploaded by

    Gia Dimayuga
    137 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over possession of 13 hectares of registered land between Tuason & Co., Inc. and Bolaños. Tuason & Co. amended its complaint three times to accurately describe the disputed land based on surveys. Bolaños claimed title through adverse possession for over time immemorial. The court ruled that Bolaños' adverse possession could not invalidate Tuason & Co.'s Torrens title, as the land had been registered under Tuason & Co. since 1914, more than one year prior. Under the Land Registration Act, adverse possession cannot supersede a registered Torrens title.

    Original Description:

    LTD

    Original Title

    254. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Bolaños, GR L-4935, May 28, 1954, 95 Phil. 106

    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 possession of 13 hectares of registered land between Tuason & Co., Inc. and Bolaños. Tuason & Co. amended its complaint three times to accurately describe the disputed land based on surveys. Bolaños claimed title through adverse possession for over time immemorial. The court ruled that Bolaños' adverse possession could not invalidate Tuason & Co.'s Torrens title, as the land had been registered under Tuason & Co. since 1914, more than one year prior. Under the Land Registration Act, adverse possession cannot supersede a registered Torrens title.

    Copyright:

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

    Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Bolaños, GR L-4935, May 28, 1954, 95 Phil. 106

    Uploaded by

    Gia Dimayuga
    This case involves a dispute over possession of 13 hectares of registered land between Tuason & Co., Inc. and Bolaños. Tuason & Co. amended its complaint three times to accurately describe the disputed land based on surveys. Bolaños claimed title through adverse possession for over time immemorial. The court ruled that Bolaños' adverse possession could not invalidate Tuason & Co.'s Torrens title, as the land had been registered under Tuason & Co. since 1914, more than one year prior. Under the Land Registration Act, adverse possession cannot supersede a registered Torrens title.

    Copyright:

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

    254. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Bolaños, GR L-4935, May 28, 1954, 95 Phil.

    106

    FACTS

    This is an action involves recovery of possession of registered land. Plaintiff's complaint


    was amended three times with respect to the extent and description of the land sought
    to be recovered. The original complaint described the land as a portion of a lot
    registered in plaintiff's name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37686 of the land
    record of Rizal Province and as containing an area of 13 hectares more or less. But the
    complaint was amended by reducing the area of 6 hectares, more or less, after the
    defendant had indicated the plaintiff's surveyors the portion of land claimed and
    occupied by him. The second amendment became necessary and was allowed
    following the testimony of plaintiff's surveyors that a portion of the area was embraced in
    another certificate of title, which was plaintiff's Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37677.
    And still later, in the course of trial, after defendant's surveyor and witness, Quirino
    Feria, had testified that the area occupied and claimed by defendant was about 13
    hectares, as shown in his Exhibit 1, plaintiff again, with the leave of court, amended its
    complaint to make its allegations conform to the evidence.

    Defendant, in his answer, sets up prescription and title in himself thru "open,
    continuous, exclusive and public and notorious possession (of land in dispute) under
    claim of ownership, adverse to the entire world by defendant and his predecessor in
    interest" from "time in-memorial". The answer further alleges that registration of the land
    in dispute was obtained by plaintiff or its predecessors in interest thru "fraud or error and
    without knowledge of or interest either personal or thru publication to defendant and/or
    predecessors in interest." The answer therefore prays that the complaint be dismissed
    with costs and plaintiff required to reconvey the land to defendant or pay its value.

    ISSUE

    Whether adverse possession of the defendant is ineffectual against registered land of


    the plaintiff?

    RULING

    Yes. The adverse possession of defendant is ineffectual against registered land of


    plaintiff As the land in dispute is covered by plaintiff's Torrens certificate of title and was
    registered in 1914, the decree of registration can no longer be impugned on the ground
    of fraud, error or lack of notice to defendant, as more than one year has already elapsed
    from the issuance and entry of the decree. Neither court the decree be collaterally
    attacked by any person claiming title to, or interest in, the land prior to the registration
    proceedings. Nor could title to that land in derogation of that of plaintiff, the registered
    owner, be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. (Section 46, Act No. 496.)
    Adverse, notorious and continuous possession under claim of ownership for the period
    fixed by law is ineffective against a Torrens title. And it is likewise settled that the right to
    secure possession under a decree of registration does not prescribe.

    You might also like