Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 111 views

    CAOIBES Vs Caoibes-Pantoja

    Uploaded by

    Aliw del Rosario
    Jose Caoibes, Jr. and Corazon Caoibes-Pantoja entered into an agreement where Jose relinquished his rights to a property to Corazon in exchange for her paying off his debts. Approximately 14 years later, Corazon filed a motion to intervene and be substituted as the applicant in a land registration case involving the property. Jose opposed this, denying the agreement's authenticity. The RTC ruled in Jose's favor, finding the claim prescribed. However, the CA reversed, holding that prescription began when Corazon asserted her rights in 1996, not the date of the agreement. The CA remanded to consider substitution. Ultimately, the CA dismissed Corazon's case, finding substitution unnecessary under the

    Copyright:

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

    CAOIBES Vs Caoibes-Pantoja

    Uploaded by

    Aliw del Rosario
    111 views1 page
    Jose Caoibes, Jr. and Corazon Caoibes-Pantoja entered into an agreement where Jose relinquished his rights to a property to Corazon in exchange for her paying off his debts. Approximately 14 years later, Corazon filed a motion to intervene and be substituted as the applicant in a land registration case involving the property. Jose opposed this, denying the agreement's authenticity. The RTC ruled in Jose's favor, finding the claim prescribed. However, the CA reversed, holding that prescription began when Corazon asserted her rights in 1996, not the date of the agreement. The CA remanded to consider substitution. Ultimately, the CA dismissed Corazon's case, finding substitution unnecessary under the

    Original Description:

    496 SCRA 273 (2006)

    Original Title

    CAOIBES vs Caoibes-Pantoja

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Jose Caoibes, Jr. and Corazon Caoibes-Pantoja entered into an agreement where Jose relinquished his rights to a property to Corazon in exchange for her paying off his debts. Approximately 14 years later, Corazon filed a motion to intervene and be substituted as the applicant in a land registration case involving the property. Jose opposed this, denying the agreement's authenticity. The RTC ruled in Jose's favor, finding the claim prescribed. However, the CA reversed, holding that prescription began when Corazon asserted her rights in 1996, not the date of the agreement. The CA remanded to consider substitution. Ultimately, the CA dismissed Corazon's case, finding substitution unnecessary under the

    Copyright:

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

    CAOIBES Vs Caoibes-Pantoja

    Uploaded by

    Aliw del Rosario
    Jose Caoibes, Jr. and Corazon Caoibes-Pantoja entered into an agreement where Jose relinquished his rights to a property to Corazon in exchange for her paying off his debts. Approximately 14 years later, Corazon filed a motion to intervene and be substituted as the applicant in a land registration case involving the property. Jose opposed this, denying the agreement's authenticity. The RTC ruled in Jose's favor, finding the claim prescribed. However, the CA reversed, holding that prescription began when Corazon asserted her rights in 1996, not the date of the agreement. The CA remanded to consider substitution. Ultimately, the CA dismissed Corazon's case, finding substitution unnecessary under the

    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

    CAOIBES, JR., v.

    CAOIBES-PANTOJA

    FACTS: Petitioners Jose Caoibes, Jr and respondent Corazon Caoibes-Pantoja, as SECOND


    PARTY, forged an agreement entitled "Renunciation and Transfer of Claims, Rights, and Interests"
    (the agreement) covering a parcel of land. As reflected in agreement of the parties, petitioners, as
    FIRST PARTY, renounced, relinquished, abandoned and transferred, ceded and conveyed whatever
    rights "they may have" over Lot 2 in favor of respondent, as second party, and on account of the
    renunciation and transfer, petitioners transferred "whatever rights . . . they may have in the
    prosecution of the land registration proceeding.
    -pending registration, Jose relinquished his rights to the property para maka bayad sya ng utang
    -About 14 years after the execution of the parties, Caoibes-Pantoja filed a motion to intervene, she
    wanted to be substituted as an applicant in lieu of the petitioners in the land registration proceeding
    -Jose opposed and denied the authenticity and due execution of the agreement, they claiming that the
    same was without the consent and conformity of their mother, the "usufructuary owner" of the land.
    Petitioner contends that Corazon no longer has right of action on the ground of prescription. An action
    founded upon a written contract must be brought WITHIN TEN (10) YEARS FROM THE TIME THE
    RIGHT OF ACTION ACCRUES.
    RTC: From the day immediately following the execution of the RENUNCIATION contract up to the
    present, with the defendants still continuing the land registration proceedings without any substitution
    of plaintiff, could only be interpreted as a clear manifestation of defendants’ willful violation of the
    claimed RENUNCIATION contract. It is quite incorrect, therefore, to say that the violation happened
    only when the defendants objected that they be substituted by plaintiff in an intervention proceedings
    filed by the latter. What separates the execution of the contract and the filing of this case is a period of
    almost EIGHTEEN (18) long years – way beyond the prescriptive period set by law.
    CA: reversed RTC. It is not from the date of the instrument but from the date of the breach that the
    period of prescription of action starts. Since, it was only in 1996 when plaintiff-appellant moved to
    intervene and be substituted as the applicant in the land registration proceeding involving the subject
    property that defendants-appellees’ raised the issue of genuineness and due execution of the
    instrument, it is only from this date that the cause of action of plaintiff-appellant accrued. The period
    should not be made to retroact to the date of the execution of the instrument on May 10, 1982 as
    claimed by the defendants-appellees for at that time, there would be no way for the plaintiff-appellant
    to know of the violation of her rights. Remanded to RTC.

    Issue: WON an amendment of application is required to substitute respondent as the applicant for the
    Land Registration Case
    Ruling: NO. The law does not require that the application for registration be amended by substituting
    the “buyer” or the “person to whom the property has been conveyed” for the applicant. Neither does it
    require that the “buyer” or the “person to whom the property has been conveyed” be a party to the
    case. He may thus be a total stranger to the land registration proceedings. The only requirements of
    the law are: (1) that the instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together with a
    motion that the same be considered in relation with the application; and (2) that prior notice be given
    to the parties to the case. The agreement of the parties is analogous to a deed of sale in favor of
    Pantoja, it having transferred ownership for and in consideration of her payment of the loan. The
    agreement having been made through public instrument, the execution was equivalent to the delivery
    of the property to Pantoja. The agreement is of course in consonance with Sec. 22 of PD 1529. In
    light of the law and jurisprudence, the substitution by Pantoja of Caoibes, Jr., et al. as applicant in the
    land registration case over Lot 2 is not even necessary. All Pantoja has to do is to comply with the
    requirements under Sec. 22 of PD 1529. It was unnecessary for Pantoja to file the case for specific
    performance subject of the present petition against Caoibes, Jr., et al. to honor their agreement
    allowing her to be substituted in their stead as applicant in the land registration proceeding.
    -CA REVERSD. Case filed by Corazon Caoibes-Pantoja is Dismissed.

    You might also like