Title
Pascua vs. Copuyoc
Case
G.R. No. L-23197
Decision Date
May 26, 1977
A dispute over Lot No. 2986 involving fraudulent transfers, ownership claims, and reconveyance, affirmed in favor of rightful possessors Pedro and Andres Pascua.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-23197)

Background and Ownership Claims

The property in question has a complex history of ownership dating back to 1900, when it was initially cleared and worked on by Juan Pascua and subsequently ceded to Victoriano Pascua and Bonifacia Lora. The trial court highlighted that ownership had been maintained and tax payments were consistently made by successive heirs, with tax declarations showing a clear chain of proprietary rights from the original owners through to Pedro and Andres Pascua. The court concluded that the ownership of Lot No. 2986 by the Pascuas was indisputable, given their long-term possession and historical connection to the property.

Fraud and Legal Proceedings

The trial court found that fraud and deceit were integral in the issuance of the decrees that affected the title of the property. Specifically, it was established that Marta Manuel, an heir of Victoriano Pascua, presented a motion claiming a decree had already become final, thus allowing for the issuance of a new title. This action was contested by the appellees, who were aware of pending claims regarding the property, leading to the trial court recognizing the validity of the Pascuas’ ownership.

Appellants' Defense and Legal Issues

The appellants argued they were innocent purchasers for value, relying on the principles of the Torrens system of land registration, which ostensibly protects good faith purchasers. However, the appellate court noted that both Quintin Melebo and Mariano Copuyoc, being lawyers, had a duty to conduct due diligence and were aware of circumstantial evidence suggesting irregularities with the property title, including the existence of unresolved claims which should have prompted further inquiry.

Conclusion and Court's Ruling

The court determined that the appellants could not be considered good faith purchasers due to the lack of appropriate inquiry into the property’s title history and the knowledge they possessed at the time of their purchases. The trial court’s findings were upheld, affirming that the appellees were the rightful owners of the lot. The decision reinforced that even under the Torrens sys

...continue reading

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