21 VOL 661 21 Mercado vs Valley Mountain Mines Exploration Inc

21 vol 661 21 mercado vs valley mountain mines

This preview shows page 5 - 7 out of 24 pages.

21 VOL. 661, NOVEMBER 23, 2011 21 Mercado vs. Valley Mountain Mines Exploration, Inc. 355 and TG-356, in the concept of owner for more than 30 years. They denied having sold their properties to anybody. VMMEI In its capacity as purchaser at the public auction of all the five parcels of land subject of Mercado’s application, VMMEI accused said applicant of misrepresentation and bad faith. VMMEI contended that Mercado’s efforts to redeem the properties failed because his checks were dishonored, and hence the same did not produce the effect of payment of the redemption price, as in fact the communication sent by the Ministry of Finance dated August 12, 1986 to the City Treasurer of Tagaytay even mentioned that said office was contemplating to file a case against Mercado for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law . By virtue of the purchase at the tax delinquency sale conducted by the City Government of Tagaytay, VMMEI claimed it is now the successor-in-interest of the previous owners, the Heirs of Narciso Olimpiada (Carandang Group) and Juan Desengaño, which has the right to apply for original registration of title over their lands. As to the request for reconsideration of the cancellation or the restoration/revival of their respective tax declarations, this was denied by the City Assessor
Image of page 5
who informed them that tax declarations covering their properties are now in the name of VMMEI as the present owner. VMMEI accordingly filed its opposition to the respective applications of the aforesaid heirs. It thus prayed for the dismissal of Mercado’s application and for it to be allowed to be substituted in the application for registration as successors-in-interest of the Heirs of Narciso Olimpiada in LRC Case No. TG-354 and the Heirs of Juan Desengaño in LRC Case Nos. TG-355 and TG- 356. Evidence Presented in LRC Case Nos. TG-354, TG-355 and TG-356 At the trial of the cases, applicant Mercado’s witness, Rosa Cabrera Mendoza, admitted that of the five children of Dominador Mendoza, a grandson of Narciso Olimpiada and her first cousin who 22 22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Mercado vs. Valley Mountain Mines Exploration, Inc. died before the outbreak of war, only the eldest, Macario, signed the documents without a written authority from his siblings (Timoteo, Catalina, Teresita and Florencia). She likewise admitted that another heir, Josefa Olimpiada, allegedly a retardate, had no participation in the transaction; no proof of guardianship or imbecility of said heir, however, was submitted. 25 Primitivo Mendoza also testified that Catalina, the daughter of his late brother Pascual Mendoza, was still alive at the execution of the Special Power of Attorney but did not sign the same. Catalina left as heirs her children with Lamberto Sumagui. Another daughter of Pascual Mendoza, Cornelia Mendoza, a.k.a. Aba Mendoza signed the document. His sister Paulina Mendoza had the following children: namely, Lorenza, Juanita, Juanito and Agapito, all surnamed Mendoza.
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 24 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Applicant Mercado

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes