Title
Amancio vs. Pardo
Case
G.R. No. 5928
Decision Date
Oct 4, 1911
Tomas Amancio claimed ownership of a lot, but his will acknowledged its sale to Alvaro Alcantara. The court ruled against Amancio, upholding the attachment and sale as lawful due to insufficient proof of ownership.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 176707)

Facts of the Case

Tomas Amancio filed a complaint alleging that he was the legitimate owner of a building lot on Calle Rizal, asserting uninterrupted possession and payment of taxes. He claimed that this lot was wrongfully attached and sold at public auction by Sheriff Andrada at the request of Jorge Pardo, based on a court judgment against Alvaro Alcantara, who Amancio contended did not own the property. Amancio sought the return of the land, reimbursement for lost rents, and damages from the defendants.

Procedural History

The sheriff admitted to the attachment of the lot but denied Amancio's claims of ownership. Jorge Pardo denied all allegations and argued that the lot belonged to Alcantara at the time of attachment. The trial court ultimately rendered a judgment disallowing Amancio's complaint, which was contested by Amancio through a motion for annulment, leading to the current appeal.

Ownership Dispute

The principal legal question arose regarding the true ownership of the disputed lot on the attachment date. The court was tasked with determining whether the lot belonged to Tomas Amancio or his son-in-law Alvaro Alcantara. The attachment occurred following a judgment obtained by Pardo against Alcantara for an unpaid debt, and the lot was sold for P824, significantly below its market value.

Evidence Presented

Amancio presented several documents to substantiate his claim of ownership, including two sales documents tracing the title from Estanislao Alvarez to Ramon Amancio, and finally to himself. In contrast, Pardo and Andrada introduced a will executed by Amancio, which indicated that the lot had been sold to Alcantara, thus undermining Amancio’s claim to rightful ownership.

Legal Analysis of the Will

The court analyzed the aforementioned will, which was deemed a public document carrying evidentiary weight. The will specified that the lot in question was sold to Alcantara, resulting in the court's conclusion that Amancio could not lay claim to the property. The will's provisions, executed according to the rules set forth in the Civil Code, were regarded as binding and conclusive evidence against Amancio’s current assertions of

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.