Hilario vs. city of manila, L – 19570, april Orosa vs. migrino gr no.
o gr no. 99338-40, feb 1, acquire the land is through the doctrine of
27, 1967
Facts: an extraordinary flood occurred which
meandered petitioner’s estate, segregating
from the rest thereof a lenticular place of land
between the old river bed and the new course.
ISSUE: WON HILARIO OWNS THE OLD RIVER
BED. Ruling: Yes. Art 370 of the old CC
provides that abandoned bed of rivers belongs
to the riparian owners. Had the change
occurred under the CC, hilario would be
entitled to all the old bed in proportion to the
area he had lost.
Ramos vs. IAC gr no. 18282, july 5, 1989
Facts: Petitioner spouses filed a copm[plaint for
the cancellation of rodolfo’s name and replace
it by the petitioners’ name on the ground that
the latter holds the land as mere trustee. The
trial court dismissed the petition for lack of
sufficient evidence. Petitioner appeal before
the SC raising new issue. ISSUE: WON THE
PETITIONER CAN VALIDLY RAISE NEW ISSUE ON
APPEAL. Ruling: no, an issue which was never
averred in the complaint nor raised during the
trial in the court below cannt be raised the first
time on appeal.
Ballatan vs. CA, 308 SCRA 34
Facts: petitioner noticed that the concrete
fence and side pathway of the adjoining house
on Winston go encroach on the entire length of
the eastern side of her property. Winston, in
construcvting those improvements relied on
the survey made by the engineer. ISSUE:
WHETHER WINSTON ACTED IN GOOD FAITH IN
BUILDING THE FENCE. Rulings: yes, go had
relied on the survey and had no knowledge
that he encroached on petitioner’s lot until
such time he has informed.
1991
Facts: heirs of Nicolas orosamoved for the
execution of SC’s judgement for registration of
land. Goldenrod intervene alleging that orosa
deltamotors acquired for value the contingent
right of Nicolas orosa over the property and
sold this to goldenrod and the latter sold this
same land with an undertaking that goldenrod
will defend the title of the vendees to the
property against claims of any third person.
ISSUE:WHETHER GOLDENROD HAS LEGAL
INTEREST IN THE LAND. Ruling: no, the
intervenor must have actual and direct interest
in the subject of litigation. Goldenrod disposed
its actual and direct interest when it sold the
same land.
Smith, et al. vs Lopez, et al
Facts: smith and reyes were contracted by
nacasio lopez and the former complied with the
agreement. Upon collection, the defendant,
daughters of nacasio, refused to pay the
balance alleging that nacasio is not the
administrator of the property. ISSUE: WHETHER
the lopez sisters can be held lianle for the
payment of the balance. Ruling: yes. The
owner of the property is liable for the
improvements by the third person upon his
property.
Jagualing vs. CA, gr no. 94283, march 4,
1991
Facts: janita inherited an island from his father
which was eroded due to typhoon. Later the
area increased due to the movement of the
river. In 1973, petitioners asked janita’s
permission to plant which the former agreed.
15 yrs later, the petitioner claims ownership
over the said land. ISSUE: WHETHER THE
PETITIONERS ARE THE OWNER OF THE LAND.
Ruling: no, the only means the petitiones could
acquisitive prescription for the period of 30 yrs.
However, their possession of the property is
only 15 yrs.
Villanueva vs. florencio, gr no. 33158, oct.
17, 1985
Facts: basilica died intestate. Without the
subject lot having been partitioned, the
husband, macario villanue, sold it to his
daughter-in-law. Petitioners, as co-owners,
signified their intention to redeem the property
but vendee refused to allow redemption
contending she is the wife of the co-owner.
ISSUE: WHETHER THE VENDOR’S CHILDREN
CAN REDEEM THE PROPERTY. Ruling: yes, the
other children are entitled to exercise the right
of redemption as co-owners of the right portion
sold. The daughter-in-law is deemed a stranger
under Art. 1620 of the CC.
Cartal vs. CA, gr no. 83883, dec 29, 1989
Facts: mateo sold to nicanor cartal 3 hectares
of land, his part, with the knowledge and
consent of his two other sisters. Later, there ia
a redivision but mateo executed an escritura
de compraventa-Deed of sale, which was
notarized, conveying to cartal his portion in lieu
of the original 3 hectares. After the death of
mateo, his two sisters wrested the possession
of land from cartal.ISSUE:WHETHER CARTAL
HAS THE RIGHT TO RECONVEY THE PROPERTY.
Ruling: yes, after all he is the rightful owner of
the land. The evidence thereof is the escritura
de compraventa – deed of sale, which is the
confirmation of the previous sale of the eastern
portion of the land owned in common.
Cortes vs IAC, 174 SCRA 545
Facts: Upon failure to pay the installments,
defendant foreclosed the mortgage. Upon
learning of such foreclosure sale, petitioner
filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of
extrajudicial foreclosure for he was
notified.ISSUE: WHETHER CORTES CAN NULLIFY
THE SAID FORECLOSURE FOR WANT OF
PERSONAL NOTIFICATION: ruling: no, ACT 3135
does not require personal noticeof the
forclosure sale to the mortgagor. Notice shall
be given by posting notices of sale for not less
than 20 days at at least 3 public places of the
municipality or city where the property is
situated.