Title
Augusto vs. Dy
Case
G.R. No. 218731
Decision Date
Feb 13, 2019
A dispute over Lot No. 4277 involving conflicting claims of ownership, fraudulent settlements, and invalid sales, leading to a Supreme Court-ordered partition among rightful owners.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 218731)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Property and Original Registration
    • Lot No. 4277 (5,327 sq m) in Lapu-Lapu City registered under OCT No. RO-3456 in the names of spouses Sixto Silawan and Marcosa Igoy.
    • The spouses had one child, Roberta Silawan, sole heir.
  • Chain of Conveyances
    • March 31, 1965: Sixto sold entire 5,327 sq m to Severino Silawan; May 7, 1965: Severino sold 2,663.5 sq m to Isnani Maut and Lily Silawan; September 16, 1966: Isnani and Lily sold the same 2,663.5 sq m to Filomeno Augusto and Lourdes Igot.
    • November 25, 1989: Filomeno and Lourdes sold 2,363.5 sq m to Antonio Dy; remaining 300 sq m to Nicomedes and Gaudencia Augusto.
  • Extrajudicial Settlement and New Titles
    • June 27, 2001: Roberta, as sole heir, executed an Extrajudicial Settlement confirming all prior sales and adjudicating the entire lot to herself.
    • December 14, 2001: Register of Deeds annotated OCT No. RO-3456, cancelled it, and issued TCTs in favor of petitioners:
      • TCT No. 48562 – Nicomedes & Gaudencia (300 sq m)
      • TCT No. 48563 – Gomercindo Jimenez (1,331 sq m)
      • TCT No. 48564 – Marcelino Paquibot (1,332.5 sq m)
      • TCT No. 48565 – Roberta (2,363.5 sq m)
  • Court Proceedings
    • July 16, 2002: Antonio filed for nullity of deeds and partition; Mario Dy intervened with separate claim.
    • RTC: Petitioners defaulted at pre-trial; respondents presented evidence ex parte; November 9, 2012 decision nullified extrajudicial settlement, related deeds and TCTs; ordered a new partition among Antonio, Mario, Gomercindo, Nicomedes.
    • CA: November 20, 2014 affirmed the RTC in toto; June 2, 2015 denied motion for reconsideration. Petitioners elevated case to SC.

Issues:

  • Whether the RTC properly declared petitioners in default and allowed ex parte presentation of evidence.
  • Whether the cancellation of petitioners’ TCTs and the new partition ordered by the lower courts was proper.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.