Title
Alvarez, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 60443
Decision Date
Feb 29, 1988
The Supreme Court affirmed the Fernandez Children as the rightful owners of Lot No. 689 in Ormoc City, resolving a dispute with Constantino Alvarez, Jr.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 60443)

Facts:

  • Petitioners: Constantino Alvarez, Jr., Casildita Alvarez de Muertegui, and Rosalia Alvarez Vda. de Tan.
  • Respondents: Court of Appeals and heirs of Segundo Garcia Fernandez.
  • In April 1936, the Director of Lands filed a petition for the settlement of titles over lands in the Ormoc Cadastre, including Lot No. 689 (338 square meters).
  • No claims were made on Lot No. 689 for several years despite legal notices.
  • On April 1, 1942, the court issued an order of general default and dismissed the cadastral proceedings.
  • On July 22, 1940, Cecilia, Alicia, and Arturo Garcia Alvarez filed a petition to lift the order of default, which was dismissed on September 27, 1940.
  • On July 9, 1956, the petitioners moved to reopen the proceedings, claiming to be heirs and seeking ownership.
  • The Cadastral Court granted the motion, set aside the default order, and allowed the Fernandez Children to present their claims.
  • The Fernandez Children failed to appear at the last trial date, allowing the petitioners to present evidence ex parte.
  • On September 1, 1958, the Cadastral Court ruled in favor of the petitioners.
  • The Fernandez Children filed a petition for review alleging fraud, which was denied by the Cadastral Court but later reversed by the Court of Appeals on December 4, 1969.
  • After a new trial, the Cadastral Court again ruled in favor of the petitioners, citing laches and prescription.
  • The Fernandez Children appealed, and on February 5, 1982, the Court of Appeals declared them the rightful owners of Lot No. 689.
  • The petitioners sought a review from the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioners' argument regarding Section 5 of Rule 10.
  • The Court ruled that the decision in CA-G.R. No. 7122 was not final and executory as it was not a judgment on the meri...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court noted that the petitioners' argument about Section 5 of Rule 10 was unclear and lacked substance.
  • Evidence presented by the petitioners contradicted their initial claims, weakening the...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.