8/8/2019 casooooooooo

1/2

Hilario vs. city of manila, L 19570, april27, 1967Facts: an extraordinary flood occurred whichmeandered petitioners estate, segregatingfrom the rest thereof a lenticular place of landbetween the old river bed and the new course.ISSUE: WON HILARIO OWNS THE OLD RIVERBED. Ruling: Yes. Art 370 of the old CCprovides that abandoned bed of rivers belongsto the riparian owners. Had the changeoccurred under the CC, hilario would beentitled to all the old bed in proportion to thearea he had lost.

Ramos vs. IAC gr no. 18282, july 5, 1989Facts: Petitioner spouses filed a copm[plaint forthe cancellation of rodolfos name and replaceit by the petitioners name on the ground thatthe latter holds the land as mere trustee. Thetrial court dismissed the petition for lack ofsufficient evidence. Petitioner appeal beforethe SC raising new issue. ISSUE: WON THE

PETITIONER CAN VALIDLY RAISE NEW ISSUE ONAPPEAL. Ruling: no, an issue which was neveraverred in the complaint nor raised during thetrial in the court below cannt be raised the firsttime on appeal.

Ballatan vs. CA, 308 SCRA 34Facts: petitioner noticed that the concretefence and side pathway of the adjoining houseon Winston go encroach on the entire length ofthe eastern side of her property. Winston, inconstrucvting those improvements relied onthe survey made by the engineer. ISSUE:

WHETHER WINSTON ACTED IN GOOD FAITH INBUILDING THE FENCE. Rulings: yes, go hadrelied on the survey and had no knowledgethat he encroached on petitioners lot untilsuch time he has informed.

Orosa vs. migrino gr no. 99338-40, feb 1,1991Facts: heirs of Nicolas orosamoved for theexecution of SCs judgement for registration ofland. Goldenrod intervene alleging that orosadeltamotors acquired for value the contingentright of Nicolas orosa over the property andsold this to goldenrod and the latter sold thissame land with an undertaking that goldenrodwill defend the title of the vendees to theproperty against claims of any third person.ISSUE:WHETHER GOLDENROD HAS LEGALINTEREST IN THE LAND. Ruling: no, theintervenor must have actual and direct interestin the subject of litigation. Goldenrod disposedits actual and direct interest when it sold thesame land.

Smith, et al. vs Lopez, et alFacts: smith and reyes were contracted bynacasio lopez and the former complied with theagreement. Upon collection, the defendant,

daughters of nacasio, refused to pay thebalance alleging that nacasio is not theadministrator of the property. ISSUE: WHETHERthe lopez sisters can be held lianle for thepayment of the balance. Ruling: yes. Theowner of the property is liable for theimprovements by the third person upon hisproperty.

Jagualing vs. CA, gr no. 94283, march 4,1991Facts: janita inherited an island from his fatherwhich was eroded due to typhoon. Later the

area increased due to the movement of theriver. In 1973, petitioners asked janitaspermission to plant which the former agreed.15 yrs later, the petitioner claims ownershipover the said land. ISSUE: WHETHER THEPETITIONERS ARE THE OWNER OF THE LAND.Ruling: no, the only means the petitiones could

acquire the land is through the doctriacquisitive prescription for the period of 3However, their possession of the propeonly 15 yrs.

Villanueva vs. florencio, gr no. 33158,17, 1985Facts: basilica died intestate. Withoutsubject lot having been partitioned,husband, macario villanue, sold it todaughter-in-law. Petitioners, as co-owsignified their intention to redeem the probut vendee refused to allow redemcontending she is the wife of the co-oISSUE: WHETHER THE VENDORS CHILCAN REDEEM THE PROPERTY. Ruling: yeother children are entitled to exercise theof redemption as co-owners of the right posold. The daughter-in-law is deemed a strunder Art. 1620 of the CC.

Cartal vs. CA, gr no. 83883, dec 29, 19

Facts: mateo sold to nicanor cartal 3 hecof land, his part, with the knowledgeconsent of his two other sisters. Later, thea redivision but mateo executed an escde compraventa-Deed of sale, whichnotarized, conveying to cartal his portion iof the original 3 hectares. After the deamateo, his two sisters wrested the posseof land from cartal.ISSUE:WHETHER CAHAS THE RIGHT TO RECONVEY THE PROPRuling: yes, after all he is the rightful ownthe land. The evidence thereof is the escde compraventa deed of sale, which i

confirmation of the previous sale of the eaportion of the land owned in common.

Cortes vs IAC, 174 SCRA 545Facts: Upon failure to pay the installmdefendant foreclosed the mortgage. learning of such foreclosure sale, peti

8/8/2019 casooooooooo

2/2

filed a complaint for declaration of nullity ofextrajudicial foreclosure for he wasnotified.ISSUE: WHETHER CORTES CAN NULLIFY THE SAID FORECLOSURE FOR WANT OFPERSONAL NOTIFICATION: ruling: no, ACT 3135does not require personal noticeof theforclosure sale to the mortgagor. Notice shallbe given by posting notices of sale for not lessthan 20 days at at least 3 public places of themunicipality or city where the property issituated.