Title
Coronado vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 78778
Decision Date
Dec 3, 1990
A dispute over a 277 sqm land in Nagcarlan, Laguna, between Juana Albovias and Leonida Coronado, involving inheritance claims, probate of wills, and subsequent sales. SC ruled Juana as rightful owner, nullifying Coronado's transactions.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 78778)

Legal Background and Nature of Claims

Juana Albovias asserted that the land in question is part of Parcel G, a portion of a larger estate bequeathed to her by her grandfather, Melecio Artiaga, in his 1918 will. This will allegedly divided the property among several heirs, including Juana and her brother. Juana contended that subsequent developments, specifically the creation of C. Lirio Street in the 1920s, led to her designated share being reportedly sold without proper authority. In contrast, Leonida Coronado claimed ownership through a will of Dr. Dalmacio Monterola, who was previously in possession of the land.

Judicial Findings of the Lower Courts

The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Juana Albovias, asserting her rightful ownership of the property and annulling the transfers made by Coronado and her co-petitioners as having no legal basis. The appellate court upheld this finding, leading Coronado to file a petition for review, arguing multiple errors in the decisions made by the lower courts.

Errors Assigned by Petitioners

The petitioners raised several points of contention: first, they claimed the appellate court erred in its findings, contending that the court disregarded material facts. Second, they argued that Juana had not sufficiently proven that the land was part of the estate from the will of Melecio Artiaga, and that a crucial step, the probate of that will, was not accomplished. Third, they asserted that Juana was barred from questioning their ownership due to her failure to raise this issue in previous estate proceedings. Lastly, the petitioners posited that the evidence provided by Juana lacked sufficient clarity regarding the disputed boundaries of the property.

Jurisdictional Limitations and Factual Confirmation

In determining the merits of the petitioners' arguments, the Supreme Court emphasized that its jurisdiction is confined to legal errors and does not extend to reevaluating factual determinations made by the lower courts. The courts had previously found that Monterola never explicitly claimed ownership or effectively possessed the property in a manner required for adverse possession under civil law. There was a distinct absence of evidence establishing that his possession could lead to a prescriptive claim, as such possession was not held under a claim of title.

The Probate and Legal Implications

The petitioners’ argument regarding the probate of Juana's grandfather’s will was dismissed on the grounds that the legitimacy of the claims could still be contested regardles

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.