Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    CAL v. ZOSA

    Uploaded by

    RenzoSantos
    The Court ruled against the petitioners in their claim that Zosa employed fraud when registering the land. Specifically: 1) The petitioners failed to prove their allegation of fraud on the part of Zosa. 2) They did not show that Zosa deliberately misrepresented information or misled the entitled party in a way that constitutes extrinsic fraud. 3) As no extrinsic fraud was proven, the petition was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    CAL v. ZOSA

    Uploaded by

    RenzoSantos
    56 views1 page
    The Court ruled against the petitioners in their claim that Zosa employed fraud when registering the land. Specifically: 1) The petitioners failed to prove their allegation of fraud on the part of Zosa. 2) They did not show that Zosa deliberately misrepresented information or misled the entitled party in a way that constitutes extrinsic fraud. 3) As no extrinsic fraud was proven, the petition was denied.

    Original Description:

    CAL v. Zosa LTD Digest

    Original Title

    84. CAL v. ZOSA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court ruled against the petitioners in their claim that Zosa employed fraud when registering the land. Specifically: 1) The petitioners failed to prove their allegation of fraud on the part of Zosa. 2) They did not show that Zosa deliberately misrepresented information or misled the entitled party in a way that constitutes extrinsic fraud. 3) As no extrinsic fraud was proven, the petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    56 views1 page

    CAL v. ZOSA

    Uploaded by

    RenzoSantos
    The Court ruled against the petitioners in their claim that Zosa employed fraud when registering the land. Specifically: 1) The petitioners failed to prove their allegation of fraud on the part of Zosa. 2) They did not show that Zosa deliberately misrepresented information or misled the entitled party in a way that constitutes extrinsic fraud. 3) As no extrinsic fraud was proven, the petition was denied.

    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 1

    CAL v.

    ZOSA  The Court herein ruled that the petitioners failed to prove
    Topic: Section 32, PD 1529; Remedies fraud on the part of Zosa
     Petitioners failed to prove that Zosa employed deliberate
    FACTS: misrepresentation such as deliberately failing to notify the
     Four children (Jimeno siblings) inherited the estate of their party entitled to notice, or in including him not to oppose an
    parents – including a parcel of land which is the land in application, or in misrepresenting about the identity of the lot
    question to the true owner by the applicant causing the former to
     The land was located in Toledo City withdraw his application. All these acts constitute as extrinsic
     Had tax declarations fraud – however, none of these was ever proved by
     Respondent Zosa was hired by the four siblings as their petitioners herein.
    counsel
     The siblings executed a deed of assignment in favor of PETITION DEINED
    Respondent Zosa
     The deed of assignment included the land in question
     The said deed of assignment was approved by the trial court
     The siblings then sold the said land to Barba
     In the meantime, the Bureau of Lands effected a cadastral
    survey over the lots located in Toledo City – it included the
    land in question
     The Director of the Bureau of Lands then filed with the City
    Court of Toledo City a petition for registration of the said land
    in the name of any claimant found to be entitled thereto
     Respondent Zosa claimed ownership of the land
     Such claim was opposed by Barba, stating that the said land
    was sold to him by the siblings and that he already
    subsequently sold the same to Tango-an who then sold it to
    petitioners herein
     The RTC ruled in favor of Zosa; affirmed by the CA
     Petitioners argue that Zosa employed extrinsic fraud in
    registering the said property

    ISSUE: WON Zosa employed fraud

    HELD:
     NO

    You might also like