Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 104 views

    Angeles v. Samia

    Uploaded by

    Hazel P.
    1) A disputed parcel of land was inherited by the plaintiff before 1896 and possessed by him until the present day. 2) In 1921, through mistaken issuance, an original certificate of title was given to the defendant and three others naming them as owners. 3) The court reasoned the certificate should be cancelled since the defendant and others knew or came to know the title was mistakenly issued, and the act does not allow one to enrich themselves at another's expense through fraud or mistake.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Angeles v. Samia

    Uploaded by

    Hazel P.
    104 views1 page
    1) A disputed parcel of land was inherited by the plaintiff before 1896 and possessed by him until the present day. 2) In 1921, through mistaken issuance, an original certificate of title was given to the defendant and three others naming them as owners. 3) The court reasoned the certificate should be cancelled since the defendant and others knew or came to know the title was mistakenly issued, and the act does not allow one to enrich themselves at another's expense through fraud or mistake.

    Original Title

    6. Angeles v. Samia.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A disputed parcel of land was inherited by the plaintiff before 1896 and possessed by him until the present day. 2) In 1921, through mistaken issuance, an original certificate of title was given to the defendant and three others naming them as owners. 3) The court reasoned the certificate should be cancelled since the defendant and others knew or came to know the title was mistakenly issued, and the act does not allow one to enrich themselves at another's expense through fraud or mistake.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    104 views1 page

    Angeles v. Samia

    Uploaded by

    Hazel P.
    1) A disputed parcel of land was inherited by the plaintiff before 1896 and possessed by him until the present day. 2) In 1921, through mistaken issuance, an original certificate of title was given to the defendant and three others naming them as owners. 3) The court reasoned the certificate should be cancelled since the defendant and others knew or came to know the title was mistakenly issued, and the act does not allow one to enrich themselves at another's expense through fraud or mistake.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Angeles v.

    Samia (1938)

    Topic: Exception to the rule of quieting title to registered land

    Facts:
    Disputed in this case is the ownership of a parcel of land. Said land in question was inherited by
    the plaintiff from his father before the year 1896. Plaintiff possessed and occupied the land under
    claim to ownership up to the present. He attempted to register his title to said land pursuant to the
    Land Registration Act in 1909, but his application was denied due to errors in his plan. However,
    he continued to exercise acts of ownership over it. In 1921, without plaintiff’s knowledge, Original
    Certificate of Title No. 8995 was mistakenly issued in the name of defendant and her three other
    co-participants: Macaria, Petra, and Felisberto, thereby mistakenly naming them as the owners of
    the said land in question. That these co-owners, having decided to partition among themselves the
    properties held by them in common, the said land was allotted only to defendant. The plaintiff
    requested the defendant, inasmuch as it was through error that said land had been adjudicated to
    her and her co-owners, to execute the corresponding deed of transfer in his favor, the land being
    lawfully his.

    Issue: W/N the original certificate of title should be cancelled.

    Held: Yes.
    The Court reasoned that the defendant and her co-owners knew or, at least, came to know that it
    was through error that the original certificate of title was issued by the court in their favor. The
    Land Registration Act protects only holders of a title in good faith and does not permit its
    provisions be used as a shield for the commission of fraud or that one enriches himself at the
    expense of another. If a person happens to obtain it by mistake, with or without bad faith on his
    part, the certificate of title may and should be cancelled or corrected. It cannot be otherwise.

    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