del campo vs ca
3
Del Campo v. CA FACTS: The Bornales (Salome, Consorcia, Alfredo, Maria, Rosalia, Jose, Quirico and Julita) were the original co-owners of a lot in Capiz. Salome had sold her 4/16 share to Daynolo with Salome, Consorcia and Alfredo signing the Deed of Absolute Sale, which had described the metes and bounds of the property. Daynolo immediately took possession and mortgaged the portion to Regalado. SimplicioDistajo, heir of Daynolo, had paid the mortgaged debt and redeem the lot from Regalado, who executed a Deed of Discharge of Mortgage in favor of Daynolo’s heirs (SimplicioDistajo, Rafael Distajo and TeresitaDistajo). They sold the redeemed portion to the spouses Del Campo and Quiachon. Meanwhile, Regalado had cause the reconstitution of the OCT initially reflecting the share of the Bornales but the title was later transferred to Regalado, who had the entire property subdivided and titled into smaller lots. The spouses Del Campo brought this complaint for the repartition, resurvey and reconveyanceof lot against the heirs of Regalado (deceased).
-
Upload
joanna-liza -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
1
description
credits not mine
Transcript of del campo vs ca
Del Campo v. CAFACTS:The Bornales (Salome, Consorcia, Alfredo, Maria, Rosalia, Jose, Qirico and Jli!a" #ere !he ori$inal co%o#ners of a lo! in Capi&. Salome had sold her '()* share !o Da+nolo #i!h Salome, Consorcia and Alfredo si$nin$ !he Deed of A,sol!e Sale, #hich had descri,ed !he me!es and ,onds of !he proper!+. Da+nolo immedia!el+ !oo- possession and mor!$a$ed !he por!ion !o Re$alado. SimplicioDis!a.o, heir of Da+nolo, had paid !he mor!$a$ed de,! and redeem !he lo! from Re$alado, #ho e/ec!ed a Deed of Dischar$e of Mor!$a$e in favor of Da+nolo0s heirs (SimplicioDis!a.o, Rafael Dis!a.o and Teresi!aDis!a.o". The+ sold !he redeemed por!ion !o !he sposes Del Campo and Qiachon.Mean#hile, Re$alado had case !he recons!i!!ion of !he 1CT ini!iall+ re2ec!in$ !he share of !he Bornales ,! !he !i!le #as la!er !ransferred !o Re$alado, #ho had !he en!ire proper!+ s,divided and !i!led in!o smaller lo!s.The sposes Del Campo ,ro$h! !his complain! for !he repar!i!ion,resrve+ and reconve+anceoflo! a$ains! !he heirs of Re$alado (deceased".1#ned !he por!ion of land erroneosl+ inclded in !he TCT in !he name of Re$alado3ad occpied !he lo! as a residen!ial d#ellin$ ever since !heir prchase of i! from !he Dis!a.os3ad declared!he land for !a/ prposes and paid !he correspondin$ !a/es4resen!ed !he Deed of A,sol!e Sale e/ec!ed ,e!#een Soledad and Salome, Deed of Mor!$a$e and Deed of Dischar$e of Mor!$a$e si$ned ,+ Re$alado and Deed of A,sol!e sale sho#in$ !heir prchaseThe !rial cor! dismissed !he complain!.Salome cold aliena!e her pro%indivisio share ,! cold no! have validl+ sold an ndivided por!ion of !he lo! ,+ me!es and ,onds !o Soledad, from #hom !he Del Campos had derived !heir !i!le. Del Campos cold no! have a ,e!!er ri$h! !o !he proper!+ even if !he+ #ere in ph+sical possession and had declared for !a/ prposes ,ecase mere possession canno! defea! !heri$h! of Re$alado, #ho had a Torrens !i!le.CA had a5rmed !he decision.6SS78S:9(: a sale ,+ a co%o#ner of a ph+sical por!ion of an ndivided proper!+ held in common is valid;38
