Title
Iriola vs. Felices
Case
G.R. No. L-26775
Decision Date
Oct 31, 1969
Mamerto Iriola contested Silverio Felices' homestead patent, claiming ownership of a disputed land parcel. The Supreme Court ruled Iriola was not estopped by a 1949 deed, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 145284)

Jurisdiction and Nature of the Case

The case arises from a complaint filed by Iriola on June 2, 1954, seeking a declaration of ownership and a reconveyance of a parcel of land he claims to have owned and possessed adversely for over ten years. The land, described in detail in the complaint, is located in the Barrio of Bagong Sirang, Pili, Camarines Sur. The defendant, Felices, counters the claim by asserting his registered ownership of a larger parcel covered by a Certificate of Title that includes the land in question.

Pleadings and Motions

Following the filing of the complaint, Felices filed his answer on June 23, 1954, contesting Iriola’s ownership and asserting that Iriola was estopped from claiming ownership as he had acknowledged that the contested parcel forms part of Felices’ titled land. A conditional sale of a portion of the property had previously occurred on February 24, 1949, wherein Felices sold a portion of land to Iriola.

Underlying Issues of Ownership

The core issue revolves around the legitimacy of Felices’ Certificate of Title which Iriola claims includes his portion of land obtained through adverse possession. Iriola asserts that Felices fraudulently included this land in his homestead application, leading to his action for reconveyance. In juxtaposition, Felices contends that Iriola occupied more land than what was conditionally sold to him, thus unlawfully depriving Felices of possession.

Estoppel and Evidentiary Admission

During the trial, Felices moved to strike the testimony of Iriola’s witness on the grounds of estoppel, arguing that Iriola had acknowledged the land's inclusion in the title deed. The trial court agreed, interpreting Iriola’s admission in the conditional sale as an acknowledgment that the land belonged to Felices. The court concluded that Iriola was estopped from proving ownership and barred him from presenting evidence of it.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinized the lower court's ruling. The Court indicated that Iriola's admissions in the conditional sale were vague and

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.