Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Pozon Vs Lopez

    Uploaded by

    JoAnnPeria
    Lopez filed a petition to quiet title and for damages against Pozon, Tradex, and others regarding a property located in Makati City. Lopez claimed to have bought the property from Zobel and took possession, but later discovered the title was still in Tradex's name. Tradex then sold the property to Pozon, despite Lopez warning them she owned it. The Supreme Court ruled that while the ejectment case determined Pozon had a better right to possess the property based on the title, Lopez could still pursue the quiet title case to determine ultimate ownership. The Court will only determine ownership for purposes of possession, not make a final binding decision, which must be done in the appropriate proceeding like the quiet

    Copyright:

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

    Pozon Vs Lopez

    Uploaded by

    JoAnnPeria
    39 views2 pages
    Lopez filed a petition to quiet title and for damages against Pozon, Tradex, and others regarding a property located in Makati City. Lopez claimed to have bought the property from Zobel and took possession, but later discovered the title was still in Tradex's name. Tradex then sold the property to Pozon, despite Lopez warning them she owned it. The Supreme Court ruled that while the ejectment case determined Pozon had a better right to possess the property based on the title, Lopez could still pursue the quiet title case to determine ultimate ownership. The Court will only determine ownership for purposes of possession, not make a final binding decision, which must be done in the appropriate proceeding like the quiet

    Original Description:

    G.R. No. 210607, March 25, 2019

    Original Title

    Pozon vs Lopez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lopez filed a petition to quiet title and for damages against Pozon, Tradex, and others regarding a property located in Makati City. Lopez claimed to have bought the property from Zobel and took possession, but later discovered the title was still in Tradex's name. Tradex then sold the property to Pozon, despite Lopez warning them she owned it. The Supreme Court ruled that while the ejectment case determined Pozon had a better right to possess the property based on the title, Lopez could still pursue the quiet title case to determine ultimate ownership. The Court will only determine ownership for purposes of possession, not make a final binding decision, which must be done in the appropriate proceeding like the quiet

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    39 views2 pages

    Pozon Vs Lopez

    Uploaded by

    JoAnnPeria
    Lopez filed a petition to quiet title and for damages against Pozon, Tradex, and others regarding a property located in Makati City. Lopez claimed to have bought the property from Zobel and took possession, but later discovered the title was still in Tradex's name. Tradex then sold the property to Pozon, despite Lopez warning them she owned it. The Supreme Court ruled that while the ejectment case determined Pozon had a better right to possess the property based on the title, Lopez could still pursue the quiet title case to determine ultimate ownership. The Court will only determine ownership for purposes of possession, not make a final binding decision, which must be done in the appropriate proceeding like the quiet

    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 2

    Pozon vs.

    Lopez
    G.R. No. 210607, March 25, 2019

    FACTS:

    Lopez filed a petition for quieting of title and damages against petitioners Sps. Pozon,
    Tradex, the Register of Deeds of Makati, Raymundo, Cuasay, Diomampo, and Evangelista.
    The petition sought to declare void the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1515226
    issued to Tradex, covering a parcel of land with improvement located at 2149 Paraiso St.,
    Dasmarinas Village, Makati City. In a Supplemental Complaint, Lopez also sought the
    declaration of nullity of TCT No. 212133 subsequently issued in the name of Sps. Pozon.

    Lopez bought the property from Zobel. After the sale of the subject property, Lopez
    immediately took possession and occupied the same. Then Beltran Cuasay Law Office
    assisted in the documentation of the sale and the transfer of the title from Mr. Zobel to
    Lopez. Consequently, the law office made it appear that the property was acquired by
    Raymundo.

    Later, Lopez discovered that the title of the subject property was in the name of
    Tradex and was never transferred in her name. She also learned that Raymundo was
    brokering the sale of the subject property to Sps. Pozon on behalf of Tradex. Lopez claimed
    that she told Raymundo and Sps. Pozon that she owned the subject property and it was not
    for sale. Lopez also refused them entry into the subject property for inspection. Despite
    Lopez’s warning, Tradex, thru Diomampo, sold the subject property to Sps. Pozon.
    Nonetheless, Tradex could not deliver possession of the subject property Lopez was still in
    possession of the subject property.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the court may pass upon the issue of ownership in action for
    ejectment.

    RULING:

    YES. It is an elementary rule that since the only issue for resolution in an ejectment
    case is physical or material possession, where the parties to an ejectment case raise the
    issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon that issue only for the purposes of
    determining who between the parties has the better right to possess the property. Where the
    issue of ownership is inseparably linked to that of possession, adjudication of ownership is
    not final and binding, but merely for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession.

    In fact, ironically, in the same Decision by the Court in the Ejectment Case heavily
    invoked by petitioners Sps. Pozon, and contrary to their assertion, the Court held that
    despite the resolution of the Ejectment Case, respondent Lopez may thresh out the issue of
    ownership in the appropriate proceeding, i.e., the Quieting of Title Case filed before the
    RTC, Branch 142: If respondent Lopez believes that she is entitled to relief, it may be
    secured from the action for quieting of title pending before another branch of the RTC. It is
    also not difficult to see that respondent Lopez wants this Court to take cognizance of
    circumstances which she believes would support her alleged ownership of the [subject]
    property and cast doubt on the petitioners Sps. Pozon’s manner of acquisition, and then rule
    on these competing claims, especially since she refuses to accept the determination of the
    courts below in the ejectment case that, based on the TCT in their name, the petitioners Sps.
    Pozon have a better right to possess the subject property. This Court is not a trier of facts
    nor can it take cognizance of facts alleged by respondent Lopez that have yet to be proven
    in an appropriate proceeding, such as Civil Case No. 96-692 pending in the RTC Branch
    142.

    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