Scribd
Upload
105 views1 page

CAL v. ZOSA

The Court ruled against the petitioners in their claim that Zosa employed fraud when registering the land. Specifically: 1) The petitioners failed to prove their allegation of fraud on the part of Zosa. 2) They did not show that Zosa deliberately misrepresented information or misled the entitled party in a way that constitutes extrinsic fraud. 3) As no extrinsic fraud was proven, the petition was denied.

Uploaded by

RenzoSantos
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
105 views1 page

CAL v. ZOSA

The Court ruled against the petitioners in their claim that Zosa employed fraud when registering the land. Specifically: 1) The petitioners failed to prove their allegation of fraud on the part of Zosa. 2) They did not show that Zosa deliberately misrepresented information or misled the entitled party in a way that constitutes extrinsic fraud. 3) As no extrinsic fraud was proven, the petition was denied.

Uploaded by

RenzoSantos
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/ 1

CAL v.

ZOSA  The Court herein ruled that the petitioners failed to prove
Topic: Section 32, PD 1529; Remedies fraud on the part of Zosa
 Petitioners failed to prove that Zosa employed deliberate
FACTS: misrepresentation such as deliberately failing to notify the
 Four children (Jimeno siblings) inherited the estate of their party entitled to notice, or in including him not to oppose an
parents – including a parcel of land which is the land in application, or in misrepresenting about the identity of the lot
question to the true owner by the applicant causing the former to
 The land was located in Toledo City withdraw his application. All these acts constitute as extrinsic
 Had tax declarations fraud – however, none of these was ever proved by
 Respondent Zosa was hired by the four siblings as their petitioners herein.
counsel
 The siblings executed a deed of assignment in favor of PETITION DEINED
Respondent Zosa
 The deed of assignment included the land in question
 The said deed of assignment was approved by the trial court
 The siblings then sold the said land to Barba
 In the meantime, the Bureau of Lands effected a cadastral
survey over the lots located in Toledo City – it included the
land in question
 The Director of the Bureau of Lands then filed with the City
Court of Toledo City a petition for registration of the said land
in the name of any claimant found to be entitled thereto
 Respondent Zosa claimed ownership of the land
 Such claim was opposed by Barba, stating that the said land
was sold to him by the siblings and that he already
subsequently sold the same to Tango-an who then sold it to
petitioners herein
 The RTC ruled in favor of Zosa; affirmed by the CA
 Petitioners argue that Zosa employed extrinsic fraud in
registering the said property

ISSUE: WON Zosa employed fraud

HELD:
 NO

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy