Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. NO. 157536 -

G.R. NO. 157536 - MELCHOR CARO, VS. SUSANA SUCALDITO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Cited Laws

RA 324,RA 20,RA 358RA 636RA 371RA 579,RA 819RA 716RA 283RA 420RA 74RA 456RA 205,RA 559
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is prayed that judgment be rendered: Ordering the annulment and voiding of the decision of the Bureau of Lands, the free patent and the Original Certificate of Title No. F-27162 or in the alternative; Ordering defendant to reconvey the ownership and in the event she wrests possession from plaintiff then, also the possession of Lot 4512 PLS-775 of Nueva Valencia, Guimaras Cadastre, back to plaintiff; Declaring plaintiff as the lawful owner and possessor of Lot 4512 PLS-775 of Nueva …

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is prayed that judgment be rendered: Ordering the annulment and voiding of the decision of the Bureau of Lands, the free patent and the Original Certificate of Title No. F-27162 or in the alternative; Ordering defendant to reconvey the ownership and in the event she wrests possession from plaintiff then, also the possession of Lot 4512 PLS-775 of Nueva Valencia, Guimaras Cadastre, back to plaintiff; Declaring plaintiff as the lawful owner and possessor of Lot 4512 PLS-775 of Nueva Valencia, Guimaras Cadastre and ordering the issuance of a free patent or a torrens title in favor of plaintiff; Ordering defendant to pay the plaintiff P50,000.00 as moral damages, P2,000.00 as attorney's fees and P2,000.00 as expenses on litigation plus exemplary damages in an amount at the discretion of this Court. Plaintiff further prays for such other relief just and equitable in the premises. [12] In her answer with counterclaim, Sucaldito interposed, as a special affirmative defense, the fact that she intervened in the proceedings on Caro's application for a free patent over Lot No. 4512 before the Bureau of Lands having bought the subject land from De la Cruz. Moreover, contrary to the allegations of the petitioner, Lot No. 989 and Lot No. 4512 were one and the same lot, as per the findings of the Bureau of Lands. The parties thereafter presented evidence to prove their respective claims. In a Decision [13] dated December 7, 1993, the trial court ruled in favor of the respondent and dismissed the petitioner's complaint. The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint filed by plaintiff is dismissed. The counterclaim of defendant which is merely the result of the filing of the complaint, is likewise dismissed. Costs against the plaintiff. SO ORDERED.