Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 97 views

    SPOUSES SEFRINO Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    The Supreme Court ruled that the auction sale of the disputed property was null and void. The facts of the case show that the original grantee of the land, Pacifico Casamayor, obtained a homestead patent in 1937 and later an original certificate of title. In 1945, over 8 years after obtaining the patent, Casamayor legally sold the land to Nemesia Baltazar. Baltazar then became the registered owner and validly sold the property to Lopez Sugar Central Mill Co. in 1951. However, Federico Serfino also claimed ownership of the property based on another certificate of title. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling canceling Serfino's certificate of title and ordering a

    Copyright:

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

    SPOUSES SEFRINO Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    97 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the auction sale of the disputed property was null and void. The facts of the case show that the original grantee of the land, Pacifico Casamayor, obtained a homestead patent in 1937 and later an original certificate of title. In 1945, over 8 years after obtaining the patent, Casamayor legally sold the land to Nemesia Baltazar. Baltazar then became the registered owner and validly sold the property to Lopez Sugar Central Mill Co. in 1951. However, Federico Serfino also claimed ownership of the property based on another certificate of title. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling canceling Serfino's certificate of title and ordering a

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    SPOUSES SEFRINO 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?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the auction sale of the disputed property was null and void. The facts of the case show that the original grantee of the land, Pacifico Casamayor, obtained a homestead patent in 1937 and later an original certificate of title. In 1945, over 8 years after obtaining the patent, Casamayor legally sold the land to Nemesia Baltazar. Baltazar then became the registered owner and validly sold the property to Lopez Sugar Central Mill Co. in 1951. However, Federico Serfino also claimed ownership of the property based on another certificate of title. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling canceling Serfino's certificate of title and ordering a

    Copyright:

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

    SPOUSES SEFRINO Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    The Supreme Court ruled that the auction sale of the disputed property was null and void. The facts of the case show that the original grantee of the land, Pacifico Casamayor, obtained a homestead patent in 1937 and later an original certificate of title. In 1945, over 8 years after obtaining the patent, Casamayor legally sold the land to Nemesia Baltazar. Baltazar then became the registered owner and validly sold the property to Lopez Sugar Central Mill Co. in 1951. However, Federico Serfino also claimed ownership of the property based on another certificate of title. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling canceling Serfino's certificate of title and ordering a

    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

    SPOUSES SEFRINO vs.

    CA

    FACTS: On 25 August 1937, a parcel of land was patented in the name of Pacifico Casamayor (OCT 1839).
    On 14 December 1945, he sold said land in favor of Nemesia D. Balatazar (TCT No. 57-N, 18 January
    1946). OCT 1839 was lost during the war and upon petition of Nemesia Baltazar, the Court of First
    Instance of Negros Occidental ordered the reconstitution thereof. Pursuant thereto, OCT 14-R (1839)
    was issued on 18 January 1946 in the name of Pacifico Casamayor. On that same day, TCT 57-N was
    issued in the name of Nemesia Baltazar but after the cancellation of OCT 14-R (1839). On 15 August
    1951, Nemesia Baltazar, sold said property to Lopez Sugar Central Mill Co., and the latter did not present
    the documents for registration until 17 December 1964 to the Office of the Registry of Deeds. Said office
    refused registration upon its discovery that the same property was covered by another certificate of
    title, TCT 38985, in the name of Federico Serfino.

    On 19 November 1964, the spouses Serfinos mortgaged the land to the Philippine National Bank (PNB)
    to secure a loan in the amount of P5,000.00; which was inscribed in TCT No. 38985. The Lopez Sugar
    Central instituted an action to recover said land; and the lower court rendered a decision ordering the
    cancellation of TCT No. 38985; issuance of a new TCT in the name of plaintiff; and the payment of the
    plaintiff PNB the loan of spouses Serfinos secured by said land. Both parties appealed from this decision
    of the trial court. Ruling on the assignment of errors, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the
    trial court with modification in its decision setting aside the decision of the trial court declaring plaintiff
    liable to PNB for payment, however, ordering the plaintiff to reimburse the Serfino spouses of the sum
    P1,839.49, representing the unpaid taxes and penalties paid by the latter when they repurchased the
    property. Hence, the appeal by the spouses Serfino and PNB to the Supreme Court.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the auction sale of the disputed property was null and void? (YES)

    RULING: They argue that since private respondent is a corporation, it is barred from owning land
    granted under the free patent if the aforementioned requisites are not present. Such contentions do not
    merit our approval. It is not disputed that the original grantee was Pacifico Casamayor who obtained a
    Homestead Patent and later an original certificate of title in his name. Later it was this original grantee
    who sold the land in question to Nemesia Baltazar on December 14, 1945 or more than eight (8) years
    after he obtained his homestead patent on August 25, 1937. On these facts, We now apply Sec. 118 of
    Commonwealth Act No. 141 which prohibits the alienation of homestead lots to private individual within
    five (5) years from the date of the issuance of the patent and not Sec, 121 which governs sale to
    corporations. Since the grant was more than five (5) years before, the transfer to Nemesia Baltazar was
    valid and legal. Nemesia Baltazar who became the titled or registered owner as evidenced by TCT No.
    57-N, could exercise acts of ownership over the land such as disposing of it to private respondent by a
    deed of sale.

    You might also like