G.R. No. L-33140 October 1978 (JM Tuason and Co. v Mariano, et. al.) Flashcards Preview

Stat Con Cases > G.R. No. L-33140 October 1978 (JM Tuason and Co. v Mariano, et. al.) > Flashcards

Flashcards in G.R. No. L-33140 October 1978 (JM Tuason and Co. v Mariano, et. al.) Deck (18):
1

Who is/are the petitioner/s?

J.M. Tuason and Co. Inc., et al.

2

Who is/are the respondent/s?

Hon. Herminio C. Mariano
Manuel Aquial
Maria Aquial
Spouses Jose Cordova and Saturnina Cordova

3

What is the case about?

The validity of Title No. 735 covering the Sta. Mesa and Diliman Estates of the Tuason mayorazgo

879 and 1,625 hectares

4

Who first filed a case?

Manuela Aquial and Maria Aquial

5

When was the first case filed by Manuela Aquial and Maria Aquial?

October 1, 1965

6

Where was the first case filed by Manuela Aquial and Maria Aquial?

In the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch

7

What result do Manuela Aquial and Maria Aquial want from filing the case?

They want to be declared the owners of the land.

They want Official Certificate of Title (OTC) No. 735 and titles derived therefrom be declared void.

8

What is the evidence presented by the Aquials in the Court of First Instance?

A Spanish title issued to their father on May 10, 1877

9

When did the Aquials know about the allegedly fraudulent registration of their land>

Sometime in 1960
OR
After Tuason & Co. Inc. "allegedly" illegally entered the land

10

When did the Tuasons register the land in their favor?

On July 6, 1914, a decree was issued by the Court of Land Registration.

11

What was the Tuasons' response to the case?

They filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, prescription, laches and prior judgement.

12

What as the Acquials' response to the Tausons' motion to dismiss?

They opposed the motion.

13

What was the lower courts decision?

They denied the Acquials' request.

However, January 25, 1967, Spouses Cordova (partial buyers/owners) were allowed to intervene.

14

Why did the lower courts deny the Acquials' request to cancel OTC. 735?

Due to grounds of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, prescription, laches and PRIOR JUDGEMENT.

15

What did the Tuasons file at the Supreme Court?

A petition for certiorari and prohibition

16

What is the ISSUE?

Whether or not OCT No. 735 and the titles derived therefrom can be questioned at this late hour by respondents and Cordova.

17

What was the Court's decision?

The Court decided to dismiss Civil Case No. 8943 with prejudice.

18

Why did the Court dismiss the civil case against the Tuasons?

stare decisis et non quieta movere

Follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled.

A similar appeal to the Court about OCT No. 735 was decided and the Court previously held that OCT No. 735 is valid.