Anda di halaman 1dari 3

HEIRS OF MARIA MARASIGAN vs.

THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT et


al.

FACTS
In 1974, a deed of absolute sale was executed by Fe Bazar in favor of
Maria Marasigan. However, in 1975, Maria Marron was declared the owner
of the subject property in a land registration case. She filed a motion for
execution which was granted. The spouses, Bazar, refused to surrender
their title and to execute the deed of sale in Marrons favor.
In 1978, when Marasigan had the title registered, the Register of Deeds of
Manila issued a TCT naming Maria Marasigan as the new owner, the notice
of lis pendenscaused to be annotated by Marron on the Bazars title was
carried over on the said new title.

ISSUE
Whether the party who bought the property with a notice of lis
pendens annotated at the back of her title has a better right over the
party in whose favor the notice of lis pendens was made.

RULING
No. The Court affirmed the ruling of the appellate court which ruled in
favor of the party how had the notice annotated and who won the
litigation over the property.
The Court reiterated the established rule that:
the filing of a notice of lis pendens charges all strangers with a notice of
the particular litigation referred to therein and, therefore, any right they
may thereafter acquire on the property is subject to the eventuality of the
suit. The doctrine of lis pendens is founded upon reason of public policy
and necessity, the purpose of which is to keep the subject matter of the
litigation within the power of the Court until the judgment or decree shall
have been entered; otherwise, by successive alienations pending the
litigation, its judgment or decree shall be rendered abortive and
impossible of execution. (Laroza v. Guia, 134 SCRA 34 1)

REPUBLIC V. CA and JOSEFINA MORATO

FACTS:
Respondent Morato filed a free patent application on a parcel of land,
which was approved and issued an original certificate of title. Both the free
patent and title specifically mandate that the land shall not be alienated
nor encumbered within 5 years from the date of the issuance of the
patent. The District Land Officer, acting upon reports that Morato had
encumbered the land and upon finding that the subject land is submerged
in water during high tide and low tide, filed a complaint for cancellation of
the title and reversion of the parcel of land to the public domain. RTC
dismissed the complaint. CA affirmed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not respondent violated the free patent condition prohibiting
encumbering the land within the 5-year period?
2. Whether or not the land is of public domain?

HELD
1. Yes. Public Land Act Sec. 18 provides thatlands acquired under free
patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or
alienation from the date of approval of the application and for a term of 5
years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grantThe
contracts of lease and mortgage executed by Morato constitute an
encumbrance as contemplated by section 18 of the Public Land Act
because such contracts impair the use of the property.
2. Yes. Based from the facts, the land is clearly foreshore as it is subject to
the ebb and flow of the tide. When the sea moved towards the estate and
the tide invaded it, the invaded property became foreshore land and
passed to the realm of the public domain. In Government v. Cabangis, the
Court annulled the registration of land subject of cadastral proceedings
when the parcel subsequently became foreshore land. In another case, the
Court voided the registration decree of a trial court and held that said
court had no jurisdiction to award foreshore land to any private person or
entity. The subject land in this case, being foreshore land should therefor
be returned to the public domain.

Republic vs. Heirs of Felipe Alejaga, Sr., (2002)


Facts:
On Dec. of 1978, Alejaga Sr. filed a Free Patent Application with the District Land
Office is Roxas City. On March of 1979, the free patent was ordered to be issued to
him. The Defendant (Register of Deeds) also issued the OCT for the parcel of land.
On April of that same year, Ignacio Arrobang requested the Director of Lands in
manila, through a letter, to investigate for irregularities in the issuance of the title

of a foreshore land in favor of Alejaga Sr. The investigator, Isagani Cartagena


recommended to the Director to file a civil proceeding to cancel the Free Patent
issued to Alejaga Sr.
On April 18, 1990, the government through the Solicitor General instituted an
action for Annulment/Cancellation of Patent and Title and Reversion against
Alejaga Sr. He died pending the proceeding. He was substituted by his heirs.
The RTC declared Isaganis testimony as hearsay and the Patent null and void, and
the CA reversed the RTC brushing aside as hearsay Isagani Cartagenas testimony
that Land Inspector Efren L. Recio had not conducted an investigation on the free
patent application of Felipe Alejaga Sr..
Issue:
Whether Isaganis testimony can be consider as hearsay hence cannot be
properly admitted in court?
Held:
No. The report of Special Investigator Isagani P. Cartagena has not been
successfully rebutted. In that report, Recio supposedly admitted that he had not
actually conducted an investigation and ocular inspection of the parcel of land.
Cartagenas statement on Recios alleged admission may be considered as
independently relevant. A witness may testify as to the state of mind of
another person -- the latters knowledge, belief, or good or bad faith -- and the
formers statements may then be regarded as independently relevant without
violating the hearsay rule. Thus, because Cartagena took the witness stand and
opened himself to cross-examination, the Investigation Report he had submitted
to the director of the Bureau of Lands constitutes part of his testimony. Those
portions of the report that consisted of his personal knowledge, perceptions and
conclusions are not hearsay. On the other hand, the part referring to the
statement made by Recio may be considered as independently relevant.
The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds that conversations
communicated to a witness by a third person may be admitted as proof that,
regardless of their truth or falsity, they were actually made. Evidence as to the
making of such statements is not secondary but primary, for in itself it (a)
constitutes a fact in issue [36] or (b) is circumstantially relevant to the existence
of such fact.
Since Cartagenas testimony was based on the report of the investigation he had
conducted, his testimony was not hearsay and was, hence, properly admitted by
the trial court.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai