Case Digest: So v. Republic (G.R. No. 170603)

So v. Republic | G.R. No. 170603 | 29 Jan 2007 | Callejo, Sr. J. | Art IV (Section 1, Par 4) | Petitioners: Edison So Respondents: Republic of the Philippines Recit Ready Summary Herein Petitioner So filed for a Petition for Naturalization under CA No. 473 aka the Revised Naturalization Law.He presented 2 witnesses à fam business lawyer Atty. Adasa & UST classmate Mark Salcedo. RTC granted So’s petition. Respondent Republic of the Phil through OSG said not so fast! Coz SolGen claims na the 2 witnesses So presented did not know him (So) well enough and that they only gave general statements upon being asked about the character and moral conduct of So. CA set aside RTC’s decision. Hence, this present petition. The issue is W/N So qualifies for Philippines Citizenship and the Court said NO. It was wrong for So to claim that that RA 9139 should apply to his case instead of CA No. 473. This is because the latter applied to ALL ALIENS regardless of class while the former applies to nati...
Post a Comment

Case Digest: Onstott v. UTNAI (G.R. No 221047)

Onstott v. UTNAI | G.R. No. 221047 | September 14, 2016 | Topic: Presumption of conjugal partnership

FACTS

  • Albert Cas, an American citizen, was the registered owner of a parcel of land. Due to non-payment of realty taxes, the Provicional Government of Rizal sold the subject property at public auction to one Amelita De Sena, highest bidder at public auction. 
  • UTNAI, an association epresentingt he actual occupants of the subject property, subsequently redeemed the same from De Sena. UTNAI thereafter filed a complaint for cancellation of the Original Certificate of Title of Albert Cas. It alleged that it became the owner of the property upon redemption from De Sena. They also contend that Albert was an American citizen who, under Philippine law is not allowed to own a parcel of land in the Philippines. The RTC granted the petition and issued a new title in the name of UTNAI. 
  • Michael Onstott, claiming to be the legitimate son of Albert with a certain Josephine Onstott, filed a petition for relief alleging that UTNAI impleaded only Albert notwithstanding knowledge of Albert’s death. He averred that UTNAI fraudulently and intentionally failed to implead him and Josephine in order to prevent them from participating in the title proceedings. Josephine as wife of Albert is owner of half of the property as it is conjugal in nature. Michael insisted that at the time of the filing of the case, Albert was already dead, which means that the ownership of the property had already devolved to his compulsory heirs. 
  • The RTC ruled in favor of Onstott reinstating the OCT in the name of Albert. The CA however reversed the ruling and declared that the grant of title to UTNAI had become final and executory. Hence, the present petition filed by Michael before the Supreme Court

ISSUE: Whether or not the courts erred in its failure to implead Josephine Onstott as an indispensable party since the subject property was allegedly conjugal in nature?

RULING

  • Article 160 of the New Civil Code provides that all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it is proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. 
  • However, the party who invokes this presumption must first prove that the property in controversy was acquired during the marriage. Proof of acquisition during the coverture is a condition sine qua non for the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership. The presumption refers only to the property acquired during the marriage and does not operate when there is no showing as to when the property alleged to be conjugal was acquired. Moreover, this presumption in favor of conjugality is rebuttable, but only with strong, clear and convincing evidence; there must be a strict proof of exclusive ownership of one of the spouses. 
  • As Michael invokes the presumption of conjugality, he must first establish that the subject property was acquired during the marriage of Albert and Josephine, failing in which, the presumption cannot stand. Records are bereft of any evidence from which the actual date of acquisition of the subject property can be ascertained. Considering that the presumption of conjugality does not operate if there is no showing when the property alleged to be conjugal was acquired, the subject property is therefore considered to be Albert's exclusive property.
DISPOSITION: Petition denied

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No 237428) w/ Summary of Separate Opinions

Republic v. Sereno (including Summary of Separate Opinions) | G.R. No. 237428 | May 11, 2018 | Tijam, J. |  Topic: Art. VIII, Sec 5 (other topics included in the full digest) | SUMMARY:   A petition for quo warranto was filed by the OSG assailing the appointment of CJ Sereno as Chief Justice on the ground that she failed to prove her integrity during the nomination process as she failed to comply with the SALN requirements of the JBC. Several groups and individuals filed Motions for Leave to Intervene, among them Senators De Lima and Trillanes. CJ Sereno filed a Motion to Inhibit against six Justices. The Republic argues that (1) quo warranto is the proper remedy, as the Constitution does not make impeachment the exclusive mode of unseating an impeachable officer; (2) the petition is not time barred as prescription cannot run against the States; and, (3) that, at the time of her appointment, CJ Sereno was not of “proven integrity” she not having filed the required SALNs a...
Read more

Case Digest: Gloria Dy v. People (G.R. No 189081)

Gloria Dy v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 189081 | August 10, 2016 | Topic: Liability ex delicto / ex contractu FACTS: Dy, as the General Manager of Mandy Commodities Company, Inc. (MCCI) proposed to William Mandy (President of MCCI) to purchase a property for the company. To facilitate the purchase, the president obtained a loan from International China Bank of Commerce (bank), which was granted to the company in the amount of P20 million.   As security, MCCI executed a chattel mortgage over their warehouses. The president entrusted Dy to manage the payment of the loan. Later on, MCCI received a notice of foreclosure over the mortgaged property due to its default in paying.   In order to prevent the foreclosure, the president delivered to Dy, P21,706,281 worth of checks issued by MCCI, with the instruction that Dy shall use the checks to pay the loan. However, the president later discovered that the checks weren’t paid to the bank when the bank foreclosed the mortg...
Read more

Case Digest: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906)

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo |  G.R. No. 180906 | October 7, 2008 |  Puno. C.J. Doctrine and Concepts: The Writ of Amparo offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof due to the nature of swiftness required to resolve these cases The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence or administrative responsibility requiring full and exhaustive proceedings. Facts The case at bar is an appeal via Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo , seeking to reverse and set aside , the Decision promulgated by Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. AMPARO No. 00001. The original case was filed by ...
Read more