Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 168 views

    Pamplona Vs Moreto

    Uploaded by

    Gean Pearl Pao Icao
    Flaviano Moreto, surviving spouse of Monica Moreto, sold land to Pamplona without consent of Monica's heirs and before liquidating the conjugal partnership. Pamplona built a house on the land believing it was a different lot. Monica's heirs sued to nullify the sale, arguing Flaviano had no right to sell. The court found Flaviano owned half the land as a co-owner and could sell his share. By not objecting for 9 years while Pamplona occupied and improved the land, Monica's heirs were estopped from claiming half. The sale transferred full ownership to Pamplona.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pamplona Vs Moreto

    Uploaded by

    Gean Pearl Pao Icao
    168 views2 pages
    Flaviano Moreto, surviving spouse of Monica Moreto, sold land to Pamplona without consent of Monica's heirs and before liquidating the conjugal partnership. Pamplona built a house on the land believing it was a different lot. Monica's heirs sued to nullify the sale, arguing Flaviano had no right to sell. The court found Flaviano owned half the land as a co-owner and could sell his share. By not objecting for 9 years while Pamplona occupied and improved the land, Monica's heirs were estopped from claiming half. The sale transferred full ownership to Pamplona.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Pamplona vs Moreto

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Flaviano Moreto, surviving spouse of Monica Moreto, sold land to Pamplona without consent of Monica's heirs and before liquidating the conjugal partnership. Pamplona built a house on the land believing it was a different lot. Monica's heirs sued to nullify the sale, arguing Flaviano had no right to sell. The court found Flaviano owned half the land as a co-owner and could sell his share. By not objecting for 9 years while Pamplona occupied and improved the land, Monica's heirs were estopped from claiming half. The sale transferred full ownership to Pamplona.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    168 views2 pages

    Pamplona Vs Moreto

    Uploaded by

    Gean Pearl Pao Icao
    Flaviano Moreto, surviving spouse of Monica Moreto, sold land to Pamplona without consent of Monica's heirs and before liquidating the conjugal partnership. Pamplona built a house on the land believing it was a different lot. Monica's heirs sued to nullify the sale, arguing Flaviano had no right to sell. The court found Flaviano owned half the land as a co-owner and could sell his share. By not objecting for 9 years while Pamplona occupied and improved the land, Monica's heirs were estopped from claiming half. The sale transferred full ownership to Pamplona.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Pamplona vs.

    Moreto
    [G.R. No. L-33187. March 31, 1980.]
    Facts:
    Spouses Moreto acquired lands 1495, 4545 and 1496 in Calamba, Laguna.
    They had 6 children. Monica (the mother) died intestate. Ursulo (one of the children)
    also died intestate leaving as his heirs Vivencio and his 5 siblings. Marta, La Paz,
    Alipio and Pablo also died intestate. 6 years after Monicas death, Flaviano (the
    surviving spouse) without th cosent of the heirs and before the liquidation of
    conjugal partnership executed a deed of absolute sale to Pamplona. The title was
    cancelled and TCT was issued to Pamplona.
    Pamplona built a house in the land. They thought that the subject matter of
    the sale was Lot no. 1495 but in fact it was Lot No. 1496. Pamplona enlarged their
    house and constructed a piggery. Then Flaviano died intestate. Moretos demanded
    Pamplona to vacate the land claiming that Flaviano had no right to sell the land but
    they refused. Heirs of Moreto filed a suit seeking for declaration of nullity of the
    deed of absolute sale. It was found out that there was mutual error between
    Flaviano and Pamplona in the execution of the sale.
    RTC held that the sale was null and void.
    CA affirmed the RTCs decision
    ISSUE:
    Whether under the facts and circumstances established by the evidence,
    Pamplonas are entitled to the full ownership of the property or only of the same.
    RULING:
    When Monica died the conjugal partnership had already dissolved. But the
    conjugal estate was not been inventoried, liquidated, settled and divided by the
    heirs. There was no extra-judicial partition between the surviving spouse and the
    heirs. Thus, the estate becomes the property of a community between the surviving
    spouse, Flaviano and his children in a concept of co-ownership pursuant to Article
    493, NCC.
    Pamplona is entitled to full ownership.
    When Pamplona built his home in the land, the heirs of Moreto and Flaviano
    lived as neighbors and they did not question the occupation, possession and
    ownership of the land purchased by Pamplonas for 9 years. Thus the Moretos are in
    ESTOPPEL BY LATCHES to claim half of the property. There was partial partition
    when at the time of sale Flaviano pointed out the area and location of the

    land. Flaviano, as aco-owner was entitled to pro-indiviso of the entire land area
    thus he had perfect legal and lawful right to dispose his share to Pamplona.
    Title may be pro-indiviso or inchoate but the moment the co-owner
    as vendor POINTED OUT its location and even indicated the boundaries
    over which the fences were to be erected WITHOUT the objection, protest
    or complaint by other co-owners is deemed that they acquiesced and
    tolerated such. Factual partition or termination of co-ownership, although partial,
    was created and barred Flaviano and the heirs of Moreto. Thus, heirs of Moreto are
    not allowed to impugn the sale. The sale is binding to the heirs thus Pamplona has
    full ownership of the whole area.
    Heirs of both Monica Maniega and Flaviano Moreto, private respondents are
    duty-bound to comply with the provisions of Articles 1458 and 1495, Civil Code,
    which is the obligation of the vendor of the property of delivering and transferring
    the ownership of the whole property sold, which is transmitted on his death to his
    heirs, the herein private respondents.
    Under Art. 1311, paragraph 1, New Civil Code, the contract of sale executed
    by the deceased Flaviano Moreto took effect between the parties, their assigns and
    heirs, who are the private respondents herein. Accordingly, to the private
    respondents is transmitted the obligation to deliver in full ownership the whole area
    of 781 sq. meters to the petitioners (which was the original obligation of their
    predecessor Flaviano Moreto) and not only one-half thereof. Private respondents
    must comply with said obligation.

    You might also like