107 as accretions to the original lot (Lot No. However, as held in the Assistant Executive Secretary case, Lot No. It appears from the records that after our ruling in the Assistant Executive Secretary case in 1989, the BOL issued a Patent on Septemin favor of the Pea Heirs which became the basis for the issuance of OCT No. These allegations certainly measure up to the requisite statement of facts to constitute an action for reconveyance.Ī final note. Respondents clearly asserted in their complaint that they and their predecessors-in-interest have long been the owners of the Disputed Property and that they were fraudulently deprived of ownership thereof when the Pea Heirs obtained a patent and certificate of title in their favor. Whenever the phrase innocent purchaser for value or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value. The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments, subject, however, to the right of any person, including the government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced. Review of decree of registration Innocent purchaser for value. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that the test of identity of causes of action lies not in the form of action but in whether the same facts or evidence would support and establish the former and present causes of action. Moreover, as correctly found by the Court of Appeals, the basis of respondents action was different from that of Mendoza the evidence necessary to sustain the latters claim is separate and distinct from that required to establish respondents cause of action. While Mendoza relied on the Miscellaneous Sales Application as evidence to support his claim, herein respondents would have to present proof of their alleged continuous possession of the Disputed Property as well as fraud in the issuance of the patent and title in favor of the Pea Heirs. Indeed, the records will show that the parties in the two cases have their own rights and interests in relation to the subject matter in litigation. It must be emphasized that respondents are not asserting rights under Mendoza. However, there is substantial identity only when the additional party acts in the same capacity or is in privity with the parties in the former action. This is not so in the present case. True, res judicata does not require absolute but only substantial identity of parties.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |