Title
Ong vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-33436
Decision Date
Jun 22, 1984
The Paguio spouses are affirmed as rightful owners of disputed lots in Iligan, deemed indispensable parties and innocent purchasers in good faith, despite awareness of ongoing litigation.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33436)

Facts:

  • The case involves Jose E. Ong (petitioner) and Escolastica Paguio and Miguel Paguio (respondents).
  • Cadastral proceedings were initiated in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte regarding several lots, including Lots Nos. 1146 and 2585.
  • The initial hearing was scheduled for March 25, 1957; only Silvestre Openiano and Jose E. Ong filed answers claiming ownership.
  • An order of general default was issued against non-respondents.
  • A fire on May 23, 1957, destroyed the courthouse, leading the court to order claimants to reconstitute their answers.
  • Openiano sold the lots to Escolastica Paguio on August 6, 1959, without notifying her of the reconstitution of his answer.
  • The Paguio spouses were unaware of the proceedings until a writ of possession was issued against them.
  • They had taken possession of the lots and built a school worth P70,000.
  • The trial concluded on June 22, 1967, favoring Ong, who was ordered to have the lots registered in his name.
  • The Paguio spouses filed a petition for relief from judgment on December 18, 1967, claiming they were uninformed of the proceedings.
  • The court granted their petition, setting aside the previous judgment and ordering a retrial, which Ong opposed, leading to the current appeal.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court dismissed Ong's petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision.
  • The Court held that the Paguio spouses were indispensable parties to the case.
  • The trial court acted within its jurisdiction in granting the Paguio spouses' petition for relief from judgment.
  • The Paguio spouses were deemed innocent...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court noted that the Paguio spouses could not intervene due to Openiano's failure to inform them of the reconstitution of his answer and subsequent proceedings.
  • The trial court ret...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.