Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 153 views

    Esconde Vs Barlongay (1987)

    Uploaded by

    JOFAMIL SEVILLENO
    1) Ramon applied for and was granted registration of title for a parcel of land, receiving OCT No. 05002. 2) Esconde contested Ramon's possession through various legal actions but their petitions were denied due to lack of merit. 3) The court held that under Act 496, the land registration decree binds the land and quiets title, being conclusive against all persons included in the general description of "To all whom it may concern." Since Esconde did not contest the initial registration application or challenge it within one year, they had forever lost any right to the land.

    Copyright:

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

    Esconde Vs Barlongay (1987)

    Uploaded by

    JOFAMIL SEVILLENO
    153 views1 page
    1) Ramon applied for and was granted registration of title for a parcel of land, receiving OCT No. 05002. 2) Esconde contested Ramon's possession through various legal actions but their petitions were denied due to lack of merit. 3) The court held that under Act 496, the land registration decree binds the land and quiets title, being conclusive against all persons included in the general description of "To all whom it may concern." Since Esconde did not contest the initial registration application or challenge it within one year, they had forever lost any right to the land.

    Original Title

    Esconde vs Barlongay (1987)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Ramon applied for and was granted registration of title for a parcel of land, receiving OCT No. 05002. 2) Esconde contested Ramon's possession through various legal actions but their petitions were denied due to lack of merit. 3) The court held that under Act 496, the land registration decree binds the land and quiets title, being conclusive against all persons included in the general description of "To all whom it may concern." Since Esconde did not contest the initial registration application or challenge it within one year, they had forever lost any right to the land.

    Copyright:

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

    Esconde Vs Barlongay (1987)

    Uploaded by

    JOFAMIL SEVILLENO
    1) Ramon applied for and was granted registration of title for a parcel of land, receiving OCT No. 05002. 2) Esconde contested Ramon's possession through various legal actions but their petitions were denied due to lack of merit. 3) The court held that under Act 496, the land registration decree binds the land and quiets title, being conclusive against all persons included in the general description of "To all whom it may concern." Since Esconde did not contest the initial registration application or challenge it within one year, they had forever lost any right to the land.

    Copyright:

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

    CHAPTER 8: METHODS OF REGISTRATION

    ESCONDE vs. BARLONGAY


    G.R. No. L-67583, July 31, 1987

    FACTS:
    The land subject of the Application, Reconveyance and the present petition is one and the same parcel of land.
    Ramon is an applicant for registration of title. The application was granted and Ramon received a copy thereof. The
    parcel of land is now covered by OCT No.-05002. Ramon filed his "Petition for Writ of Possession" against the
    spouses Esconde. The spouses Esconde filed for an opposition to the Writ of possession but was denied for lack of
    merit. Spouses Esconde filed with the same court a Petition to quash the Writ of Possession to which an
    Opposition was filed by Ramon. Esconde then filed a complaint for reconveyance, against Ramon. The judge
    denied the petition to quash writ of possession. The Sheriff then delivered possession to Ramon, but then Esconde
    re-entered the premises and took possession thereof, hence Ramon respondent filed a Motion for an Alias Writ of
    Possession and consequently, asked for a writ of demolition for the removal of any construction of the Esconde
    family on the premises and to cite Esconde for contempt of court. A series of action commenced and the Second
    Division resolved to issue a temporary restraining order directing the Sheriff and Ramon to refrain from enforcing
    and/or carrying out the Third Alias Writ of Possession. Esconde then filed a Motion to Amend Resolution and
    Temporary Restraining.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Esconde’s motion to admit amended complaint and for issuance of restraining order and/ or
    preliminary injunction is proper.

    HELD:
    NO. Land registration proceedings in this case commenced on April 14, 1969 and decision thereon was rendered
    on December 8, 1969. Hence, the law in force at the time was Act 496, P.D. 1529 having taken effect only on Jan.
    23, 1979. Section 38 of Act 496 states that every decree of registration shall bind the land, and quiet title thereto.
    It shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, whether mentioned by name in the application, notice or
    citation or included in the general description "To all whom it may concern." Hence, it was established that when
    no answer in writing nor any opposition is made to an application for registration of property in Court, all the
    allegations contained in the application shall be held as confessed by reason of the absence of denial on the part of
    the opponent. A person who has not challenged an application for registration of land even if the appeal
    afterwards interposed is based on the right of dominion over the same land, cannot allege damage or error against
    the judgment ordering the registration inasmuch as he did not allege or pretend to have any right to such land. A
    claimant having failed to present his answer or objection to the registration of a parcel of land under the Torrens
    System or to question the validity of such registration within a period of one year after the certificate of title had
    been issued, had forever lost his right in said land even granting that he had any right therein.

    You might also like