Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Pamplano Vs Moreto

    Uploaded by

    Pie Boja-Coste
    Flaviano Moreto sold a plot of land measuring 781 square meters to Pamplano without the consent of his heirs or partitioning his estate from his late wife's. After Flaviano's death, the heirs demanded that Pamplano vacate the land, claiming Flaviano did not have the right to sell. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pamplano, finding that (1) the doctrine of laches applied since Pamplano had lived on the land for 9 years before any complaint; and (2) Flaviano was entitled to half of the total land area and had in fact sold less than his share. Therefore, the sale was valid and Pamplano had full ownership of the 7

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Pamplano Vs Moreto

    Uploaded by

    Pie Boja-Coste
    15 views1 page
    Flaviano Moreto sold a plot of land measuring 781 square meters to Pamplano without the consent of his heirs or partitioning his estate from his late wife's. After Flaviano's death, the heirs demanded that Pamplano vacate the land, claiming Flaviano did not have the right to sell. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pamplano, finding that (1) the doctrine of laches applied since Pamplano had lived on the land for 9 years before any complaint; and (2) Flaviano was entitled to half of the total land area and had in fact sold less than his share. Therefore, the sale was valid and Pamplano had full ownership of the 7

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    102. Pamplano vs Moreto

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Flaviano Moreto sold a plot of land measuring 781 square meters to Pamplano without the consent of his heirs or partitioning his estate from his late wife's. After Flaviano's death, the heirs demanded that Pamplano vacate the land, claiming Flaviano did not have the right to sell. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pamplano, finding that (1) the doctrine of laches applied since Pamplano had lived on the land for 9 years before any complaint; and (2) Flaviano was entitled to half of the total land area and had in fact sold less than his share. Therefore, the sale was valid and Pamplano had full ownership of the 7

    Copyright:

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

    Pamplano Vs Moreto

    Uploaded by

    Pie Boja-Coste
    Flaviano Moreto sold a plot of land measuring 781 square meters to Pamplano without the consent of his heirs or partitioning his estate from his late wife's. After Flaviano's death, the heirs demanded that Pamplano vacate the land, claiming Flaviano did not have the right to sell. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pamplano, finding that (1) the doctrine of laches applied since Pamplano had lived on the land for 9 years before any complaint; and (2) Flaviano was entitled to half of the total land area and had in fact sold less than his share. Therefore, the sale was valid and Pamplano had full ownership of the 7

    Copyright:

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

    PamplanovsMoreto

    Facts:

    1. FlavianoMoreto and wife Monica have lands in Laguna. They have 6 kid who produced LOTS of heirs (13 or 14 heirs)
    2. When Monica died, Flaviano sold 781 sq m of land to Pamplano without the consent of the heirs and no liquidation and
    partition happened yet. (There was an issue of confusion of lots but I don’t think you need to include it. BastaFlaviano and
    Pamplano thought the land sold was Lot 1495 but in reality it was Lot 1496)
    3. The Pamplanos built a house (later on enlarged it and built a piggery) in the lot as well as their son.
    4. When Flaviano died, the heirs demanded for Pamplano to vacate the area contending that Flaviano had no right to sell the
    land because it was still part of the Conjugal Partnership. They demanded 6 things. I REPEAT SIX THINGS
    a. Declare the nullity on ½ of sale of the 781 sqm
    b. Declare them as rightful owners of the other half
    c. Allow redemption of the ½ sold to defendants after payment of the other half’s purchase price
    d. Order the defendants to vacate
    e. Damages and attorney’s fees
    f. Make defendants pay 120Php until the time defendants vacate the premises
    5. Pamplano’s contentions:
    a. Sale was valid because the totle is under Flaviano’s name (the title indicated “FlavianoMoreto married to Monica
    Maniega)
    b. They were in good faith
    6. After relocation of lots agreed by parties, it was found out that Flaviano and Pamplano had a mutual error in execution of
    sale (the confusion in lots but meh not that important)
    7. RTC favored Moretos. CA affirmed

    Issues:

    1. Part of Conjugal Partnership?


    2. Are the Moretos barred by laches?
    3. Is Pamplano entitled to full ownership of the 781 sqm or just ½?

    Held:

    1. No question that when sale happened, conjugal partnership was already dissolved(Art 175 of NCC). Since no partition
    happened, estate became part of the property of community between heirs and Flaviano. Co-ownership applies.
    2. OF COURSE LACHES WILL APPLY. The house of Pamplanos was built in 1952 and the complaint was filed in 1961. There was
    a 9 years gap and according to the case, the heirs and the Pamplanos even became neighbors. (Gihuwatranilasi father dear
    na ma deds before sila mag file)
    3. There was already a partial partition when Flaviano pointed out the specific land sold and where the Pamplanos built their
    houses after. Since the total area of land is 2346 sq m, Flaviano is entitled to ½ of it which is 1173 sq m. this obviously
    means that the sale of 781 sq m was perfectly legal (may sobra pa siFlaviano)

    The moment Flaviano pointed out the property without protest of the heirs created a partial partition which barred the
    heirs from asserting their rights/title in derogation of the deed of sale. More over, the heirs MUST COMPLY with the
    obligation of Flaviano to deliver full ownership of the 781 sq m, not just ½ of it. This is because, under the NCC, the heirs
    inherit not just the rights but also the obligations of the parents that are not yet extinguished. They are duty-bound to
    deliver 781 sq m.

    THE END.

    You might also like