Case Digest (G.R. No. 1207)
Facts:
- Plaintiffs, Pia Basa and others, filed a petition seeking the division of a block of land located in the suburb of Ermita, Manila.
- Plaintiffs claimed ownership of one-third of the property, while defendants, Maria Paz Arquiza and Jose Claro Arquiza, claimed ownership of the other two-thirds.
- Defendants had been collecting rent and revenues from the property for a long time.
- Plaintiffs alleged that Dalmacio Arquiza, who they claimed was also a legitimate child of Santiago Arquiza and Joaquina Carcaces, was entitled to a share of the property.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The court ruled in favor of the defendants, Jose Claro Arquiza and Maria Paz Arquiza.
- The court held that the plaintiffs' admission that Maria Paz Arquiza was the legitimate child of Santiago Arquiza and Joaquina Carcaces proved that the statement of parentage in Dalmacio Arquiza's certificate of baptism was false.
- Therefore, Dalmacio Arquiza could not be considered a legitimate child of Sa...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The court based its decision on the admission of the plaintiffs that Maria Paz Arquiza was the legitimate child of Santiago Arquiza and Joaquina Carcaces.
- This admission contradicted the claim that Dalmacio Arquiza was also a legitimate child of the same parents.
- The court also considered the certificate of baptism of Dalmacio Arquiza, which showed that he was born while Santiago Arquiza was married to Joaquina Carcaces.
- The court co...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 1207)
Facts:
The case of Basa v. Arquiza involves a dispute over the division of a town property in the suburb of Ermita, Manila. The plaintiffs, Pia Basa and others, filed a petition seeking the division of the property, claiming ownership of one-third of it. On the other hand, the defendants, Jose Claro Arquiza and Maria Paz Arquiza, claim ownership of the remaining two-thirds. The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants have been collecting rent and revenues from the property.
Issue:
The main issue in the case is the legitimacy of Dalmacio Arquiza, who is claimed to be a legitimate child of Santiago Arquiza and Joaquina Carcaces, the parents of the defendants. The plaintiffs admit that Maria Paz Arquiza is a legitimate child of Santiago and Joaquina, as evidenced by her baptism certificate. However, they argue that Dalmacio is also a legitimate child based on his baptism certificate. The defendants dispute this claim and provide evidence that Dalmacio was actually the illegitimate child of Santiago Arquiza and another woman, Benita Linares.
Ruling:
The court rules in favor of the defendants, Jose Claro Arquiza and Maria Paz Arquiza. The court states that the admission of the plaintiffs regarding the legitimacy of Maria Paz Arquiza proves that the statement of parentage in Dalmacio's baptism certificate is false. The cour...