This case involves a dispute over ownership of a 152 square meter property between Castorio Alvarico and Amelita Sola. Fermina Lopez, Amelita's adoptive mother and Alvarico's aunt, was originally granted rights to the property by the Bureau of Lands. Fermina then transferred her rights to Amelita, who paid P282,900 for the property. Alvarico claims that Fermina donated the land to him in 1984 and he took possession. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Amelita, finding that even if she acquired the title in bad faith, only the State can institute reversion proceedings. As Alvarico did not show that he was the rightful owner,
This case involves a dispute over ownership of a 152 square meter property between Castorio Alvarico and Amelita Sola. Fermina Lopez, Amelita's adoptive mother and Alvarico's aunt, was originally granted rights to the property by the Bureau of Lands. Fermina then transferred her rights to Amelita, who paid P282,900 for the property. Alvarico claims that Fermina donated the land to him in 1984 and he took possession. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Amelita, finding that even if she acquired the title in bad faith, only the State can institute reversion proceedings. As Alvarico did not show that he was the rightful owner,
This case involves a dispute over ownership of a 152 square meter property between Castorio Alvarico and Amelita Sola. Fermina Lopez, Amelita's adoptive mother and Alvarico's aunt, was originally granted rights to the property by the Bureau of Lands. Fermina then transferred her rights to Amelita, who paid P282,900 for the property. Alvarico claims that Fermina donated the land to him in 1984 and he took possession. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Amelita, finding that even if she acquired the title in bad faith, only the State can institute reversion proceedings. As Alvarico did not show that he was the rightful owner,
This case involves a dispute over ownership of a 152 square meter property between Castorio Alvarico and Amelita Sola. Fermina Lopez, Amelita's adoptive mother and Alvarico's aunt, was originally granted rights to the property by the Bureau of Lands. Fermina then transferred her rights to Amelita, who paid P282,900 for the property. Alvarico claims that Fermina donated the land to him in 1984 and he took possession. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Amelita, finding that even if she acquired the title in bad faith, only the State can institute reversion proceedings. As Alvarico did not show that he was the rightful owner,
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
ALVARICO vs SOLA
G.R. No. 138953. June 7, 2002
FACTS: Petitioner Castorio Alvarico is the natural father of respondent Amelita Sola while Fermina Lopez is petitioner’s aunt, and also Amelita’s adoptive mother. On June 17, 1982, the Bureau of Lands approved and granted the Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) of Fermina (Amelita's adopted mother / aunt) over Lot 5, with an area of 152 sq. m. and later on she executed a Deed of Self-Adjudication and Transfer of Rights 3 over the property in favor of Amelita, who in return agreed to assume all the obligations, duties, and conditions imposed upon Fermina under MSA Application and paid a total amount of P 282,900.00.
The Bureau of Lands issued an Order approving the transfer of rights and granting the amendment of the application from Fermina to Amelita and issued an Original Certificate of Title in favor of Amelita which herein petitioner in return, filed a Civil Case for reconveyance against Amelita claiming that on January 4, 1984, Fermina donated the land to him, and immediately thereafter, he took possession thereof and that the donation to him had the effect of withdrawing the earlier transfer to Amelita.
ISSUE: Whether or not, the petitioner has a better claim over the property.
HELD:
No, the petitioner does not have a claim over the land subject of the dispute.
Even assuming that respondent Amelita Sola acquired title to the disputed property in bad faith, only the State can institute reversion proceedings under Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act, to wit: All actions for reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Clearly then, Petitioner has no standing at all to question the validity of Respondent’s title and he cannot recover the property because, to begin with, he has not shown that he is the rightful owner thereof.
