Case Digest (G.R. No. L-46439)
Facts:
Andrea M. Moscoso v. Court of Appeals and Maximina L. Moron, G.R. No. L-46439, April 24, 1984, the Supreme Court Second Division, Guerrero, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Andrea M. Moscoso filed on March 22, 1966 an application for registration under Act No. 496 of a 1,147-square-meter residential lot in Palo, Leyte, claiming ownership by inheritance from her father, the late Pascual Monge (d. June 9, 1950), and by virtue of a partial partition executed May 22, 1964. After publication of the notice of initial hearing, the Highway District Engineer of Leyte (public oppositor) and several private oppositors including Maximina L. Moron appeared; the trial court dismissed the public oppositor’s plea for road reservation but allowed the private oppositions to proceed.
The private oppositors alleged that the land had been verbally partitioned by the original owner, Isidra Vigera Monge, in favor of Zenona Lanuncia and her daughters (including Maximina and others) prior to Isidra’s death in 1915; alternatively, they pleaded acquisitive prescription and equitable title. The trial court found that Maximina had been voluntarily recognized as a daughter of Pascual Monge by a power of attorney dated February 11, 1945 (Exhibit 2) and that the document showed no deliberate alteration; on December 22, 1971 it ordered registration in co-ownership: Andrea for a three-fourths (3/4) share and the oppositors (Concordia, Maximina and Flaviano) each for one-twelfth (1/12), subject to a road reservation.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration arguing inter alia that the Old Civil Code should govern succession (Pascual died before the New Civil Code took effect), and that Exhibit 2 was materially altered and not a public/authentic document. The trial court amended its adjudication on May 25, 1972, awarding Andrea a 13/14 share and Maximina 1/14 share. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s amended decision. Petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.
At the Supreme Court the main factual controversy centered on the authenticity and probative effect of Exhibit 2 (the 1945 power of attorney) and whether...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals’ finding that Exhibit 2 was authentic and not materially altered merit deference and preclude reversal by this Court?
- Could the Court of First Instance acting as a land registration court properly decide the oppositor’s status as an acknowledged natural child and the attendant successional rights?
- Did Exhibit 2 constitute an authentic writing effecting voluntary recognition under the Civil Code, and is Article 278 (recognition) of the New Civil Code applicable retroactively under Article 2260?
- What is the correct partition/share of the land between petitioner and an ackno...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)