Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 62 views

    ObliCon Alonso v. Cebu Country Club Digest Attempt

    Uploaded by

    Keith Jasper Mier
    Francisco Alonso originally claimed ownership over a lot based on documents showing his father had acquired it, but courts ruled it rightfully belonged to the government. After Francisco's death, his heirs continued pursuing the case. The government then sought to execute the Supreme Court decision through a writ of execution, but Congress had since passed a law validating titles in the area, including the one held by Cebu Country Club. The trial court denied reconsideration of the case, finding the new law rendered execution of the previous decision unnecessary. The petitioner's then appealed again to the Supreme Court, which denied the petition.

    Copyright:

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

    ObliCon Alonso v. Cebu Country Club Digest Attempt

    Uploaded by

    Keith Jasper Mier
    62 views1 page
    Francisco Alonso originally claimed ownership over a lot based on documents showing his father had acquired it, but courts ruled it rightfully belonged to the government. After Francisco's death, his heirs continued pursuing the case. The government then sought to execute the Supreme Court decision through a writ of execution, but Congress had since passed a law validating titles in the area, including the one held by Cebu Country Club. The trial court denied reconsideration of the case, finding the new law rendered execution of the previous decision unnecessary. The petitioner's then appealed again to the Supreme Court, which denied the petition.

    Original Title

    ObliCon Alonso v. Cebu Country Club Digest attempt

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Francisco Alonso originally claimed ownership over a lot based on documents showing his father had acquired it, but courts ruled it rightfully belonged to the government. After Francisco's death, his heirs continued pursuing the case. The government then sought to execute the Supreme Court decision through a writ of execution, but Congress had since passed a law validating titles in the area, including the one held by Cebu Country Club. The trial court denied reconsideration of the case, finding the new law rendered execution of the previous decision unnecessary. The petitioner's then appealed again to the Supreme Court, which denied the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    62 views1 page

    ObliCon Alonso v. Cebu Country Club Digest Attempt

    Uploaded by

    Keith Jasper Mier
    Francisco Alonso originally claimed ownership over a lot based on documents showing his father had acquired it, but courts ruled it rightfully belonged to the government. After Francisco's death, his heirs continued pursuing the case. The government then sought to execute the Supreme Court decision through a writ of execution, but Congress had since passed a law validating titles in the area, including the one held by Cebu Country Club. The trial court denied reconsideration of the case, finding the new law rendered execution of the previous decision unnecessary. The petitioner's then appealed again to the Supreme Court, which denied the petition.

    Copyright:

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

    Facts:

    The Petitioner, Francisco M. Alonso, died during the pendency of this case.
    Francisco was then substituted by his legal heirs: his wife (Mercedes v. Alonso), his
    son (Tomas V. Alonso) and his daughter (Asuncion V. Alonso). Francisco, being the
    sole heir of the late spouses Tomas N. Alonso and Asuncion Medalle, discovered
    documents showing that his father had acquired Lot No. 727 of Banilad Friar Lands
    Estate from the Government but such sale was not registered with the Register of
    Deeds because of lack of requirements. Francisco further found that the certification
    of title covering Lot No. 727-D-2 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate had been
    “administratively reconstituted from the owner’s duplicate” of Transfer Certificate of
    Title (TCT) No. RT-1310 in the name of United Service Country Club, Inc of which
    the court that had heard the petition for reconstruction, changed to that of Cebu
    Country Club now in TCT No. 94905 and entered in the land records of Cebu City.
    Francisco demanded upon Cebu Country Club the restoration of ownership to him
    but the latter denied and refused which led Francisco in commencing against Cebu
    Country Club an action for the declaration of nullity and non-existence of deed/title,
    the cancellation of certificates of title, and the recovery of property in the RTC in
    Cebu City. However, the RTC decided in favor of Cebu Country Club which led both
    parties to appeal to CA. CA ultimately affirmed RTC due to which Francisco filed a
    motion for reconsideration but was denied leading him to take it up further to SC
    (G.R. No. 130876) which also denied his petition and decreed that the Lot originally
    and legally belongs to the Government of the Philippines. The petitioners sought a
    reconsideration but the court denied their motion for reconsideration making the
    court’s decision final and executory.

    As a result of decision, the Government, through the OSG, later on filed a motion for
    the issuance of a writ of execution in RTC of which Cebu Country Club opposed.
    Meanwhile, a law (R.A. No. 9443) was enacted by the Congress which validates the
    TCTs and reconstituted titles covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate in Cebu City.
    Both Cebu Country Club and the OSG brought the passage of the law to the
    attention of the RTC for its consideration in resolving the OSG’s case which the RTC
    later denied. The petitioners then joined in and filed a motion for reconsideration for
    the denial of OSG’s case. The OSG then also commented on such motion that the
    Government no longer seeks the execution of G.R. No. 130876 as the title of
    property concerned was obtained through fraud which resulted to RTC issuing a
    second appeal denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration which led the
    petitioner to escalate unto SC.

    Issue:

    Ruling: Petition for review is denied.

    Ratio:

    You might also like