Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Simeon Cabang, Virginia Cabang and Venancio Cabang V. Mr. & Mrs. Guillermo Basay

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Dionelle Soriano
    The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between the Cabang family who had occupied the land for years and the Basays who purchased the land from the heirs of the original owner. While the Cabangs argued the property was their family home, the court ruled it did not qualify as such under the law since the Basays were recognized as the legal owners of the property based on purchase from the heirs. As the property was not part of the Cabang family's estate, it could not be considered their family home protected from recovery actions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Simeon Cabang, Virginia Cabang and Venancio Cabang V. Mr. & Mrs. Guillermo Basay

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Dionelle Soriano
    9 views1 page
    The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between the Cabang family who had occupied the land for years and the Basays who purchased the land from the heirs of the original owner. While the Cabangs argued the property was their family home, the court ruled it did not qualify as such under the law since the Basays were recognized as the legal owners of the property based on purchase from the heirs. As the property was not part of the Cabang family's estate, it could not be considered their family home protected from recovery actions.

    Original Description:

    Cabang V Basay Case Digest

    Original Title

    Cabang v. Basays

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between the Cabang family who had occupied the land for years and the Basays who purchased the land from the heirs of the original owner. While the Cabangs argued the property was their family home, the court ruled it did not qualify as such under the law since the Basays were recognized as the legal owners of the property based on purchase from the heirs. As the property was not part of the Cabang family's estate, it could not be considered their family home protected from recovery actions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    9 views1 page

    Simeon Cabang, Virginia Cabang and Venancio Cabang V. Mr. & Mrs. Guillermo Basay

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Dionelle Soriano
    The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between the Cabang family who had occupied the land for years and the Basays who purchased the land from the heirs of the original owner. While the Cabangs argued the property was their family home, the court ruled it did not qualify as such under the law since the Basays were recognized as the legal owners of the property based on purchase from the heirs. As the property was not part of the Cabang family's estate, it could not be considered their family home protected from recovery actions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SIMEON CABANG, VIRGINIA CABANG AND VENANCIO CABANG V. MR. & MRS.

    GUILLERMO BASAY
    GR No. 180587 March 20 2009 [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third Division]

    ISSUE: Does the subject property qualify as a family home?

    FACTS: Deceased Felix Odong owned a piece of land (Lot No. 7777) in Molave, Zamboanga
    Del Sur. Felix and his heirs never occupied nor took possession of the lot. Spouses Guilermo
    Basay bought the said property from the heirs of Felix. They did not also occupy the said
    property.

    Simeon Cabang, Virginia Cabang and Venancio Cabang, on the other hand, had been in
    continuous, open, peaceful and adverse possession of the same parcel of land. They were the
    awardees of the cadastral lands of the adjacent land Lot No. 7778. During the cadastral
    proceedings, the Cabangs claimed Lot No. 7778 on the belief that the area they were actually
    occupying was Lot No. 7778. Subsequently, they have discovered that they were actually
    occupying Lot No. 7777.

    The Basays filed a complaint for the Recovery of Property. However, the Cabangs insist that the
    property subject of the controversy is a duly constituted family home which is not subject to
    execution.

    RULING: No, the subject property does not qualify as a family home. As pointed out in Kelley
    Jr. V. Planters Products, Inc. :"[T]he family home must be part of the properties of the absolute
    community or the conjugal partnership, or of the exclusive properties of either spouse with the
    latter's consent, or on the property of the unmarried head of the family." Here, since the property
    on which they allege where the family home stands is owned by the Basays, the said property is
    not a family home.

    You might also like