Case Digest (G.R. No. L-25949)
Facts:
Bernardo O. Salazar v. Mrs. Emiliana Libres de Castrodes, et al., G.R. No. L-25949, May 22, 1969, the Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff-appellee Bernardo O. Salazar alleged he purchased and acquired possession of a coconut-planted parcel of land in Guindulman, Bohol, on July 28, 1941 from Bienvenido C. Libres; he claimed continuous, open and peaceful possession, payment of taxes and enjoyment of fruits until about August 24, 1960 when Bienvenido (and later Bienvenido’s co-heirs) asserted ownership and interfered with plaintiff’s possession.
On October 1, 1960 Salazar filed Civil Case No. 1380 for recovery of ownership and possession before the Court of First Instance of Bohol; the CFI rendered judgment in his favor on May 9, 1962 and, on July 16, 1962, a writ of execution issued pending appeal. When the Provincial Sheriff sought to execute, the defendants (alleged heirs of Alipio Libres) asserted an adverse hereditary claim which surprised Salazar because they had not previously intervened in Civil Case No. 1380.
Salazar subsequently instituted this action to quiet title. The defendants-appellants answered, alleging the property formed part of the undivided intestate estate of their father and that Bienvenido’s sale was null and fictitious. During the trial the parties stipulated and introduced as evidence the records and stenographic transcript of Civil Case No. 1380 (which the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. No. 32569-R, had affirmed as declaring Salazar owner and Bienvenido’s deed valid).
Defendants filed a third-party complaint (Feb. 18, 1963) to add Bienvenido as third-party defendant, and a motion to dismiss (filed four days later) which the trial court denied by order dated March 13, 1963; an answer was filed March 18, 1963. The trial court entered judgment for Salazar on December 14, 1965. Defendants appealed directly to the Supreme Court; the Court limited review to questions of law and noted defendants were bound by the lower courts’ findings of fact. The defendants assigned errors attacking the denial of the motion to dismiss, the application of the prior personal judgment to this action, and the lower court’s reliance on ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- On a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, are appellants limited to raising only questions of law and bound by the lower courts’ findings of fact?
- Did the trial court err in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss and in applying the judgment in Civil Case No. 1380 (a personal action) to the present action?
- Did the trial court err in finding a valid partition/sale when the deed was executed by one heir without the knowl...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)