Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 68 views

    Espina Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    KF
    Petitioner seeks the reconveyance of a disputed 744-square meter lot, claiming her mother owned the property since 1915. However, private respondents assert they legally own the registered land. The RTC and CA both dismissed the petitioner's case. The CA ruled that petitioner's predecessor did not file a claim during the cadastral proceedings as required, and the tax declaration covered a different 320-square meter property. The Supreme Court affirms, finding the CA properly considered the tax declaration issue, as it was closely related to the assigned error.

    Copyright:

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

    Espina Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    KF
    68 views1 page
    Petitioner seeks the reconveyance of a disputed 744-square meter lot, claiming her mother owned the property since 1915. However, private respondents assert they legally own the registered land. The RTC and CA both dismissed the petitioner's case. The CA ruled that petitioner's predecessor did not file a claim during the cadastral proceedings as required, and the tax declaration covered a different 320-square meter property. The Supreme Court affirms, finding the CA properly considered the tax declaration issue, as it was closely related to the assigned error.

    Original Description:

    espina

    Original Title

    22. espina vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner seeks the reconveyance of a disputed 744-square meter lot, claiming her mother owned the property since 1915. However, private respondents assert they legally own the registered land. The RTC and CA both dismissed the petitioner's case. The CA ruled that petitioner's predecessor did not file a claim during the cadastral proceedings as required, and the tax declaration covered a different 320-square meter property. The Supreme Court affirms, finding the CA properly considered the tax declaration issue, as it was closely related to the assigned error.

    Copyright:

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

    Espina Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    KF
    Petitioner seeks the reconveyance of a disputed 744-square meter lot, claiming her mother owned the property since 1915. However, private respondents assert they legally own the registered land. The RTC and CA both dismissed the petitioner's case. The CA ruled that petitioner's predecessor did not file a claim during the cadastral proceedings as required, and the tax declaration covered a different 320-square meter property. The Supreme Court affirms, finding the CA properly considered the tax declaration issue, as it was closely related to the assigned error.

    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

    G.R. No.

    102128 November 6, 1992


    ABUNDIA ESPINA vs. CA
    BELLOSILLO, J.

    FACTS:
    Petitioner seeks the reconveyance of the 744-square meter disputed lot as she alleges that the property
    is owned by her mother, Maria Lazaga, who had it declared in her name in 1915 for taxation purposes,
    and that she and her mother have been in the peaceful and public possession and enjoyment thereof.
    She asserts that by means of deceit and fraud, the disputed property was included and made part of Lot
    2723 and subsequently registered in the name of Rufina Lazaga. Petitioner claims that she discovered
    the fraud only sometime in 1985 when private respondents required her tenants to pay rentals to them.
    Private respondents in turn maintain that they are the owners of the land in dispute, which is registered
    in their names and that petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, Maria Lazaga, does not even appear to be a
    survey claimant in Lot 2723 in the 1918 cadastral proceedings.

    The RTC dismissed the petitioner’s action for reconveyance. The CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC. It
    ruled that Maria Lazaga did not file an answer to claim any interest in the land during the cadastral
    proceedings as required by Act No. 2259, sec. 9. The proceedings are in rem and, therefore, plaintiff-
    appellant's predecessor-in-interest could not have been unaware of them. It would defeat the purpose
    for instituting cadastral proceedings if after several years a party could still claim ownership of a land
    adjudicated in those proceedings to another party. Also, the tax declaration claimed by petitioner,
    appears to cover a different land.

    Hence, this petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not CA erred in considering an issue which was not raised in the briefs of the parties.

    RULING:

    No. The Court have scrutinized the records and the Court sustain the decision of respondent CA when it
    held that the 1915 tax declaration of petitioner, pertains to a parcel of land with an area of 320 square
    meters, different from that of belonging to private respondents.

    The appellate court may uphold the judgment of a lower court on grounds other than those relied upon
    by the trial court. In fact, even if issues are not formally and specifically raised on appeal, they may
    nevertheless be considered as long as they are closely related to the error properly assigned or upon
    which the determination of the question raised by the error properly assigned is dependent. Here, the
    CA can hardly be said to have treated issues not brought before the court a quo. What the appellate
    court merely did was to make a strict scrutiny of the evidence on record, and that its ruling that
    petitioner's pertains to a different land does not mean it violated the principle that an issue which has
    not been raised in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Simply put, all that
    respondent CA did was to take into account a ground or issue closely related to or intimately interwoven
    with the error properly assigned.

    The petition for review is denied.

    You might also like