Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4K views

    Vda de Delizo V Delizo

    Uploaded by

    followthefishies
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Caanawan lands belonged to the conjugal partnership of Nicolas Delizo's second marriage, not his first. While the lower courts found the lands were part of the first marriage's CPG, the SC disagreed as Dorotea and Nicolas were the ones who cultivated the land. Furthermore, the lands were only registered under the Homestead Act during the second marriage, fulfilling the legal requirements for ownership at that time, making the property part of the second marriage's CPG.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vda de Delizo V Delizo

    Uploaded by

    followthefishies
    4K views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Caanawan lands belonged to the conjugal partnership of Nicolas Delizo's second marriage, not his first. While the lower courts found the lands were part of the first marriage's CPG, the SC disagreed as Dorotea and Nicolas were the ones who cultivated the land. Furthermore, the lands were only registered under the Homestead Act during the second marriage, fulfilling the legal requirements for ownership at that time, making the property part of the second marriage's CPG.

    Original Title

    Vda de Delizo v Delizo

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Caanawan lands belonged to the conjugal partnership of Nicolas Delizo's second marriage, not his first. While the lower courts found the lands were part of the first marriage's CPG, the SC disagreed as Dorotea and Nicolas were the ones who cultivated the land. Furthermore, the lands were only registered under the Homestead Act during the second marriage, fulfilling the legal requirements for ownership at that time, making the property part of the second marriage's CPG.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4K views1 page

    Vda de Delizo V Delizo

    Uploaded by

    followthefishies
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Caanawan lands belonged to the conjugal partnership of Nicolas Delizo's second marriage, not his first. While the lower courts found the lands were part of the first marriage's CPG, the SC disagreed as Dorotea and Nicolas were the ones who cultivated the land. Furthermore, the lands were only registered under the Homestead Act during the second marriage, fulfilling the legal requirements for ownership at that time, making the property part of the second marriage's CPG.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Vda.

    De Delizo vs Delizo (1976) Facts:

    Nicolas Delizo married Rosa Villasfer in 1981. She died in 1907. He remarried. The second marriage with Dorotea de Ocampo lasted 46 years (19111957) until Nicolas death. The act of partition was filed by Nicolas two children from his first marriage, and the heirs of his other deceased child (also from the first marriage). Lower court divided the properties in the following way: a. 3 children of first marriage b. Dorotea c. children of both marriage (divided in 13 parts) CA: Point of contention was Caanawan lands in Nueva Ecija. Other lands belong to second marriage No proof property owned by second marriage Testimony of Dorotea not persuasive Moises Patricio places acquisition sometime after the revolution: Rosa was still alive at this time LC: conjugal partnership of first marriage transformed into co-ownership by Nicolas and his children, thus fruits belong to co-ownership. CA disagrees with LC: HOWEVER, IT WAS DOROTEA AND NICOLAS WHO CULTIVATED THE LAND, HENCE THE FRUITS OF THE LAND SHOULD GO TO THE SECOND MARRIAGE Dorotea elevated case to SC. According to her, Canaawan properties were not part of first marriages CPG as lands were homesteads. First marriage had possessory rights, but second marriage had exclusive right over it as it was during the second marriage that it was registered pursuant to Act 926.

    Issue: To which CPG does the Caanawan lands belong to (1st or 2nd marriage)? Held: Property belongs to the CPG of the 2nd marriage as land was only registered during second marriage. Act 926 (Homestead Act): Rights of homesteader to land does not become absolute until the following requirements of law are fulfilled: a. Person filing application backed by two credible witnesses has to prove he has resided and cultivated the land for 5 years after filing application b. Person filing has to make affidavit attesting that the land is not encumbered/alienated. Lands were only distributed by cabecillas in 1905. When Dacquel, Antolin, and Pascua conveyed the land to Nicolas, they could not have fulfilled the requirements of Act 926 before conveyances to Delizo. Dacquel less than a year, Antolin 2 years, Pascua 3 years The 3 did not have legal rights to transfer to Delizo. What they transferred were inchoate rights, not ownership rights. PRINCIPLE: Deciding factor where homestead belongs to time of registration NOT when homestead patent is issued as registration is the only time all requirements have been fulfilled.

    You might also like