6 - Aquino vs QUIAZON (2015).docx - LETICIA NAGUIT AQUINO...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 11 pages.

LETICIA NAGUIT AQUINO, MELVIN NAGUIT, ROMMEL NAGUIT, ELMA NAGUIT TAYAG, YSSEL L. NAGUIT, ROSALINA NAGUIT AUMENTADO, RIZEL NAGUIT CUNANAN, CARIDAD NAGUIT PARAJAS, MILLIE NAGUIT FLORENDO, MARNEL NAGUIT, EDUARDO NAGUIT, JOSE NAGUIT, ZOILO NAGUIT, AND AMELIA NAGUIT DIZON, represented by YSSEL L. NAGUIT, Petitioners, vs. CESAR B. QUIAZON, AMANDA QUIAZON, JOSE B. QUIAZON AND REYNALDO B. QUIAZON, represented by JAIME B. QUIAZON, Respondents. G.R. No. 201248 March 11, 2015 Ccomplaint for Annulment and Quieting of Title was filed before the RTC by the petitioners. They alleged that they were the heirs of the late Epifanio Makam and Severina Bautista, who acquired a house and lot consisting of 557 square meters, by virtue of a Deed of Sale, dated April 20, 1894; that since then, they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, adverse, and notorious possession for more than a hundred years, constructing houses and paying real estate taxes on the property; that sometime in June 2005, they received various demand letters from the respondents. The respondents claiming ownership over the subject property and demanding that they vacate the same; that upon inquiry with the Register of Deeds of San Fernando, Pampanga, they confirmed that the property had been titled in the name of respondents under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 213777-R; that the said title was invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable; and that they were the true owners of the property. Respondents asserted that they were the absolute owners of the subject land as per TCT No. 213777-R; that they had inherited the same from their predecessor-in-interest, Fausta Baluyut, one of the registered owners under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-1138 (11376), as per the Project of Partition and Deed of Agreement and those petitioners had been occupying the property by mere tolerance. They denied the allegations in the complaint and proffered affirmative defenses with counterclaims. They argued that: First , the petitioners "have no valid, legal and sufficient cause of action "against them, because their deed of sale was spurious and could not prevail over Land Registration Decree No. 122511 issued on June 28, 1919 in Land Registration Case No. 5, LRC Records No. 128, by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, in favor of their predecessor-in- interest. The predecessors-in-interest of petitioners were among the oppositors in the land registration proceeding but, nevertheless, after the trial, the subject lot was awarded, decreed and titled in favor of respondents' predecessor-in-interest, as per OCT No. RO-1138 (11376) of the Registry of Deeds of Pampanga. Second , the action was barred by prescription and that petitioners were guilty of laches in asserting their interest over the subject lot, considering that Land Registration Decree No. 122511 was issued on June 28, 1919 and OCT No. RO-1138 (11376) was issued on May 12, 1922. Hence, it was much too late for petitioners to institute the action after more than 80 years. They also raised the settled rule that a title registered

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture