Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9420)
Facts:
Brigida V. de Garchitorena v. Armando Cledera, G.R. No. L-9420, December 18, 1956, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.
In 1950, Armando Cledera filed a petition for registration under Act No. 496 for two parcels of urban land shown in plan PSU-121721 in the City of Naga. On May 30, 1951, Brigida V. de Garchitorena filed an opposition alleging only that a house owned by Primitivo Rivero, erected on the land sought to be registered, violated an easement in her favor because its windows were closer to the boundary than the law allowed.
After trial the Court of First Instance granted Cledera’s registration application on March 13, 1952, and ordered the owner of the house to close the windows facing Mrs. Garchitorena’s land. On April 16, 1952 the trial court issued an order directing the Chief of the General Land Registration Office to expedite the degree of title.
In June 1952 Mrs. Garchitorena sought to admit an amended opposition, claiming that Cledera’s plan included some 24 square meters of her property and asking exclusion of that area. On June 21, 1952 the trial court granted withdrawal of the amended opposition because the parties agreed to a resurvey. On November 3, 1952, surveyor Pantaleon Panelo filed a resurvey report recommending amendment of plan PSU-121721 by segregating lots 3 and 4 alleged to belong to Mrs. Garchitorena. Cledera objected that the resurvey was not authorized by him; the trial court overruled the objection on the ground that Cledera’s counsel had authorized the resurvey before being discharged.
The trial court then issued an order on December 24, 1952 setting aside its original decision and reopening the case because the former trial had allegedly been held without notice to the oppositor and in the absence of her counsel. A new decision dated January 7, 1953 reaffirmed registration in Cledera’s favor except for the 24 sq. m. claimed by Mrs. Garchitorena, who asserted adverse possession since 1939 and a verbal cession from one Stillion Stilianopules.
Cledera appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s amendatory judgment and ruled in his favor. The Court of Appeals held that the reopening and the amendatory decision had long become final; that although the record did not show express notice to Mrs. Garchitorena the presumption of regular performance of official duty operated against her and had not been overcome; and, on the merits, that her claim of cession and of adverse possession fo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the trial court’s original decision had become final despite petitioner’s assertion that she was not notified?
- Did petitioner prove title to the disputed 24 square meters by cession or adverse possession so as to exclude it from the registra...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)