Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29073)
Facts:
The case involves Espiritu Bunagan, Perpetua Inso, and Guadalupe Lumongsod as petitioners against the respondents, which include the Branch VI of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Filemon Ompad, Arsenio Ompad, Napoleon Ompad, and Dionisia Icong. The events leading to this case began on December 19, 1966, when Dionisia Icong and her children, all surnamed Ompad, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Cebu for the reconstitution of the original certificate of title for Lot 1660 of the Opon Cadastre. They sought to have the title reconstituted in the names of "spouses Antonino Ompad and Dionisia Icong" and to cancel another title issued in the names of Filemon, Manuel, Arsenio, Napoleon Ompad, and Dionisia Icong. Espiritu Bunagan opposed this petition, claiming ownership of the lot through a purchase from Guadalupe Lumongsod and Perpetua Inso, who were the legitimate heirs of the late Antonio Ompad. Bunagan argued that Dionisia Icong was merely a trust...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29073)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- The case involves a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the orders of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VI, dated June 17, 1967, and January 4, 1968, in Cadastral Case No. 17, LRC Record No. 946, concerning Lot 1660 of the Opon Cadastre.
Petition for Reconstitution:
- On December 19, 1966, private respondents Dionisia Icong and her children (Filemon, Manuel, Arsenio, and Napoleon Ompad) filed a petition for the reconstitution of the original certificate of title for Lot 1660 in the name of "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong, spouses." They also sought to cancel the existing title and issue a new one in their names.
Opposition by Espiritu Bunagan:
- Espiritu Bunagan, the petitioner, opposed the reconstitution, claiming ownership of the lot. He argued that he had purchased the lot from Guadalupe Lumongsod and Perpetua Inso, who were the legitimate heirs of the late Antonio Ompad. He also contended that Dionisia Icong was merely a trustee of the lot on behalf of Antonio Ompad.
Cadastral Court's Ruling:
- The cadastral court ruled that it could not entertain Bunagan's claim, which should be addressed in a separate civil action. The court granted the petition for reconstitution and ordered the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the original certificate of title in the name of "spouses Antonino Ompad and Dionisia Icong."
Motion to Correct the Order:
- On November 22, 1967, Bunagan filed an urgent motion to correct the order of June 17, 1967, and the original certificate of title, arguing that the lot was originally adjudicated to "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong" and not "spouses Antonino Ompad and Dionisia Icong." Dionisia Icong opposed this motion, citing Section 112 of the Land Registration Act.
Denial of the Motion:
- On January 4, 1968, the court denied Bunagan's motion, stating that the claim should be addressed in a separate civil action.
Issue:
- Whether the cadastral court acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reconstitution of the original certificate of title in the name of "spouses Antonino Ompad and Dionisia Icong."
- Whether the court erred in denying Bunagan's motion to correct the order and the original certificate of title.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the cadastral court erred in re-registering Lot 1660 in the name of "spouses Antonino Ompad and Dionisia Icong." The orders of June 17, 1967, and January 4, 1968, were modified to reflect the original ownership of "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong," and the Register of Deeds was ordered to correct the title accordingly.