Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RAFAEL ORTIZ Y AQUINO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 175874 2013-12-11	HEIRS OF CIPRIANO TRAZONA v. HEIRS OF DIONISIO CAÑADA SERENO, C.J.
The present controversy arose in 1997. Petitioners went to the Office of the Municipal Assessor to secure a copy of Tax Declaration No. 07764, as they intended to sell Lot No. 5053-H to an interested buyer.[15] To their surprise, they were informed that Tax Declaration No. 07764 had been cancelled and, in lieu thereof, Tax Declaration No. 23959 was issued on 24 June 1996 in the name of Dionisio.[16] Apparently, respondents had caused the issuance of Tax Declaration No. 23959 by submitting a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 27 June 1956 supposedly executed by Cipriano in favor of Dionisio.[17] That sale involved a portion of Lot No. 5053-H described as follows:x x x that portion of land of Lot No. FIVE THOUSAND FIFTY THREE-H (5053-H) under subdivision plan FLR-133 approved by the Director of Lands Jose P. Dans on September 5, 1953, covered by monuments No. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, of said Lot No. 5053 bounded on the North by Lot No. 5954 & portion of Lot 5053-H; East by portion of Lot 5053-H; South by Lot no. 5053-J of Domingo Ababon; West by Lot no. 9479; x x x.[18]
	GR No. 175874 2013-12-11	HEIRS OF CIPRIANO TRAZONA v. HEIRS OF DIONISIO CAÑADA SERENO, C.J.
In its Decision dated 6 April 2004, the RTC annulled the assailed deed and ordered the cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 23959, as well as the reinstatement of Tax Declaration No. 07764.[28] Respondents were also ordered to demolish their residential house on Lot No. 5053-H and to pay petitioners attorney's fees and litigation expenses.[29]
	GR No. 175874 2013-12-11	HEIRS OF CIPRIANO TRAZONA v. HEIRS OF DIONISIO CAÑADA SERENO, C.J.
Dionisio was then well aware that this temporary arrangement may be terminated at any time. Respondents cannot now refuse to vacate the property or eventually demand reimbursement of necessary and useful expenses under Articles 448 and 546 of the New Civil Code, because the provisions apply only to a possessor in good faith, i.e., one who builds on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof.[52] Persons who occupy land by virtue of tolerance of the owners are not possessors in good faith.[53] Thus, the directive of the RTC for respondents to demolish their residential house on Lot No. 5053-H was also proper.