Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 112 views

    Digan Vs Malines

    Uploaded by

    Kate Evangelista
    1) Paris owned land that was placed under an agrarian reform program and divided into lots for beneficiaries like the Petitioners. 2) The Petitioners consented to Paris selling one lot to Respondents, but the title was later cancelled without Respondents' knowledge. 3) Respondents filed to cancel the Petitioners' emancipation patents, but the court dismissed the petition finding that as non-landowners as of 1972, Respondents could not claim the right of retention over the land.

    Copyright:

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

    Digan Vs Malines

    Uploaded by

    Kate Evangelista
    112 views1 page
    1) Paris owned land that was placed under an agrarian reform program and divided into lots for beneficiaries like the Petitioners. 2) The Petitioners consented to Paris selling one lot to Respondents, but the title was later cancelled without Respondents' knowledge. 3) Respondents filed to cancel the Petitioners' emancipation patents, but the court dismissed the petition finding that as non-landowners as of 1972, Respondents could not claim the right of retention over the land.

    Original Title

    Digan vs Malines

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Paris owned land that was placed under an agrarian reform program and divided into lots for beneficiaries like the Petitioners. 2) The Petitioners consented to Paris selling one lot to Respondents, but the title was later cancelled without Respondents' knowledge. 3) Respondents filed to cancel the Petitioners' emancipation patents, but the court dismissed the petition finding that as non-landowners as of 1972, Respondents could not claim the right of retention over the land.

    Copyright:

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

    Digan Vs Malines

    Uploaded by

    Kate Evangelista
    1) Paris owned land that was placed under an agrarian reform program and divided into lots for beneficiaries like the Petitioners. 2) The Petitioners consented to Paris selling one lot to Respondents, but the title was later cancelled without Respondents' knowledge. 3) Respondents filed to cancel the Petitioners' emancipation patents, but the court dismissed the petition finding that as non-landowners as of 1972, Respondents could not claim the right of retention over the land.

    Copyright:

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

    14. Digan v. Malines, G.R. No.

    183004 (December 6, 2017)

    Facts: Paris is the owner of 3 parcels of land in llocos Sur with an area of 31.89 hectares with
    respective TCTs. The subjected lands were placed under OLT pursuant to P.O. 27, and were
    divided into 6 lots, and the Petitioners were the qualified as beneficiaries. By virtue of a Joint
    Affidavit of Waiver, the Petitioner consented to the sale by Paris of the one of the lots to
    Malines and Melecio who were issued a new TCT. Unknown to Respondents, the TCT was
    cancelled by the RD of !locos Sur; while Emancipation Patents were issued to the Petitioner and
    registered with the RD. Respondents filed a petition for cancellation of the EPs. Petitioners
    admitted that the no CLT were issued to them prior to the issuance of the EPs, and that
    Respondents. The PA dismissed the petition.

    Issue: Whether or not Respondents can claim the right of retention .

    Held: No. Under P.O. No. 27, the right of retention may only be claimed and exercised by the
    landowner identified to be such as of 21 October 1972, and/or any of his heirs who inherited
    such agricultural lands after the said date. Consequently, Malines and Melecio, who were
    neither the owners of the subject land when P.O. No. 27 was issued nor were the heirs of the
    landowner thereof, could not claim the right of retention.

    You might also like