Scribd
Upload
925 views

Dizon vs. CA - GR No. 101929 - Case Digest

1) Dionisio Galang was originally titled to Lots 3548 and 3562 through a 1919 cadastral case, judicially confirming his ownership. 2) Petitioners are Dionisio's heirs who successfully subdivided the lots and obtained new titles. 3) Respondents claim as heirs of Dionisio's five sisters, presenting a 1920 affidavit as evidence of partition. However, the affidavit did not specifically mention Lots 3548 and 3562. 4) The Court ruled in favor of petitioners, finding that respondents did not sufficiently prove their claim of co-ownership or link to the five sisters. Dionisio's title through the cadastral case was incontrovertible.

Uploaded by

Abigail Tolabing
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
925 views

Dizon vs. CA - GR No. 101929 - Case Digest

1) Dionisio Galang was originally titled to Lots 3548 and 3562 through a 1919 cadastral case, judicially confirming his ownership. 2) Petitioners are Dionisio's heirs who successfully subdivided the lots and obtained new titles. 3) Respondents claim as heirs of Dionisio's five sisters, presenting a 1920 affidavit as evidence of partition. However, the affidavit did not specifically mention Lots 3548 and 3562. 4) The Court ruled in favor of petitioners, finding that respondents did not sufficiently prove their claim of co-ownership or link to the five sisters. Dionisio's title through the cadastral case was incontrovertible.

Uploaded by

Abigail Tolabing
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

DIZON vs.

CA
(Proving right of ownership; Art. 434)

Benjamin Dizon, et al., petitioners vs.


Court of Appeals, Aureo Reyes, et al., respondents
G.R. No. 101929, January 6, 1993
PADILLA, J.

Recit-Ready Case Summary:


The properties disputed in this case (Lots 3548 and 3562 of the Bacolor Cadastre) were originally owned by Sps. Hilario and Martina
Galang, which was eventually titled in the name of Dionisio Galang, their son, through a Cadastral Case in May 1919. Dionisio had five
sisters named Marciana, Flaviana, Potenciana, Gertrudes and Leoncia/Leonora).

Petitioners, who are heirs of Dionsio, were able to successfully subdivide the said lots in three parts corresponding to each of Dionisio’s
three children, and obtain titles thereto.

Respondents, who are allegedly heirs of Dionisio’s sisters, presented an un-notarized affidavit, dated 27 June 1920 and executed by
Dionisio, stating that the two lots were partitioned among the six siblings and two other co-heirs. They claim that as a consequence of
this affidavit, the sisters were able to build houses on Lot 3548, which was passed on from generation to generation, with each of their
descendants enjoying the benefits therefrom. However, the above-mentioned affidavit contained no specific reference to Lots 3548 and
3562.

The trial court ruled in favor of Dionisio’s heirs; however, the CA reversed the lower court’s ruling, declaring that co-ownership existed
between respondent’s predecessors-in-interest (Dionisio’s sisters). In this case, the Court, yet again, reversed the ruling in favor of
petitioners, citing the lack of sufficient evidence proving respondents’ right of ownership over the disputed lots.

General Rule of Law/Doctrine:


Article 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the
weakness of the defendant's claim.

Titles of ownership judicially confirmed through a cadastral case, which is a proceeding in rem, is binding “on the whole world.” Absent
of any timely objection or protest, issuances resulting from a cadastral case become indefeasible and incontrovertible.

FACTS:
Petitioners seek to nullify the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 April 1991, declaring null and void the Deed of Extra-Judicial
Settlement of the estate of the deceased Dionisio Galang, in so far as it relates to Lots 3548 and 3562 of the Bacolor Cadastre, and
TCT Nos. 182670-R and 182671-R issued by virtue thereof.

Sps. Hilario and Martina Galang mortgaged Lots 3548 and 3562 to Camilo Angeles. It is alleged that their son, Dionisio Galang,
redeemed these lots in his own name, despite the fact that his five sisters (Marciana, Potenciana, Flaviana, Leonora and Gertrudes)
contributed to the funds used for the redemption.

Herein petitioners (heirs of Dionisio) were able to execute a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, dividing the said lots into three equal parts
corresponding to his three children; they had succeeded in subdividing the lots and in obtaining titles thereto in their name.

Herein respondents all claim to be heirs and successors of either five sisters of Dionisio. They allege that Dionisio and his sisters had
partitioned the properties in question, thus the sisters were able to construct their houses on Lot 3548. They presented, as evidence, an
un-notarized affidavit executed by Galang stating that he received from his sisters “the sum of one hundred and six pesos…as
complete payment for the discharge of the land we co-inherited, which is the one we partitioned…which was mortgaged to the Angeles
family.” However, it was not expressly stated in the affidavit which specific land it pertains to.

The houses constructed on Lot 3548 passed on from generation to generation, with each sister’s descendants enjoying the benefits
therefrom. No one questioned the ownership of said properties until petitioners (heirs of Dionisio) informed them that the lots were titled
in Dionisio’s name, and were successfully subdivided in favor of his three children.

The appellate court declared that co-ownership existed between respondents' predecessors-in-interest and those of petitioners, on the
basis of Galang's affidavit which, although un-notarized, was nonetheless an ancient document, pursuant to Sec. 22, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court, since it was executed on 27 June 1920. As such, proof of its due execution and authentication could be dispensed with,
according to the appellate court. Hence, this recourse in turn by the petitioners.

ISSUE: Whether respondents (heirs of Dionisio’s sisters) successfully proved their right of co-ownership over the Lots 3548
and 3562? — NO.

HELD:
Respondents were not able to prove, with sufficient evidence, their right of ownership over the said properties. The court arrived at this
decision by considering the following:

First, Dionisio Galang’s ownership over the disputed lots had been judicially confirmed on 19 May 1919 in Cadastral Case No. 14,
GLRO No. 51, which is a proceeding in rem and hence binging “on the whole world.” None of Galang’s co-heirs objected to or protester

PROPERTY - Sung
their issuance. Then it was only after 61 years that the descendants of Galang’s co-heirs (herein respondents) asserted co-ownership
claims over the subject lots.

Second, the un-notarized affidavit presented by respondents as evidence, lacked any specific and express reference to Lot Nos. 3548
and 3562. Said affidavit is not therefore a sufficient basis or support for what is alleged by respondents as a partition among Dionision
and his now deceased sisters. It does not, as correctly stated by the trial court, amount to anything insofar as the two lots involved in
this cased are concerned.

Third, and lastly, in the absence of definite proof establishing respondents’ link/relationship to their alleged predecessors-in-interest (the
Galang sisters), they do not have any cause of action, and the suit for partition must necessarily fall. The trial court aptly observed:
”. . . . Lamentably, all that was proved…by the plaintiffs…was that each of these plaintiffs are just related to one another in varying
degrees of relationship. They failed to establish their connection or relationship with any of these five sisters save for their unfounded
averment that they are indeed descendants and heirs of these deceased individuals.”

Hence, the Court grants this petition, thereby setting aside the decision of the CA in favor of petitioners.

PROPERTY - Sung

You might also like