Scribd
Upload
340 views2 pages

Mendoza v. Mella and Iac - Digest

1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land originally owned by Paciano Pareja. 2) Paciano's son Jaime disappeared in 1963 and was presumed dead that year. Jaime had lived with his common-law wife Catalina Mendoza and their son Rodolfo on the land. 3) In 1979, Paciano sold the land to Demistocles Mella. Mella later notified Rodolfo and Catalina to vacate the land. Rodolfo claimed ownership either through succession from his father Jaime or through adverse possession for over 10 years.

Uploaded by

Mirabel Vidal
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
340 views2 pages

Mendoza v. Mella and Iac - Digest

1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land originally owned by Paciano Pareja. 2) Paciano's son Jaime disappeared in 1963 and was presumed dead that year. Jaime had lived with his common-law wife Catalina Mendoza and their son Rodolfo on the land. 3) In 1979, Paciano sold the land to Demistocles Mella. Mella later notified Rodolfo and Catalina to vacate the land. Rodolfo claimed ownership either through succession from his father Jaime or through adverse possession for over 10 years.

Uploaded by

Mirabel Vidal
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

MENDOZA V. MELLA FACTS: 1) Lot No.

3390-B of the Sorsogon cadastre was owned originally by Paciano Pareja who donated it in 1939 to his son !a"ino. #) !a"ino disa$$eared in 19%3 and has not been heard of since. 3) &' held that he died that sa(e year. %) 't the ti(e of his disa$$earance he was li"ing with his co((on-law wife &atalina )endo*a and their son +odolfo ,$etitioners) -) .n 19%/ Paciano sold the lot to 0e(istocles &. )ella who notified $etitioners in 19-# to "acate the sa(e. 1) Notice to "acate went 2nheeded where2$on )ella co((enced this action in 19-- on the basis of the deed of sale by Paciano in his fa"or 3) Petitioners clai( ownershi$ for +odolfo first on the gro2nd of s2ccession fro( his father !a"ino and secondly by ad"erse $ossession for (ore than 10 years. ISSUE: Whether Rodolfo may e !o"#$dered a# a" a!%"o&led'ed "at(ral !h$ld a"d th(# e"t$tled to #(!!e##$o"al r$'ht#. RULIN): NO. &' had negati"ely resol"ed this iss2e on # gro2nds4 1) 5nly e"idence on the (atter is his birth certificate which &' held is not $roof of ac6nowledg(ent7 and #) 0here is no showing that +odolfo8s $arents co2ld ha"e (arried each other when he was concei"ed. 0he S& held that only the 1st gro2nd need be resol"ed. 0he birth certificate was disregarded by the &' since the syste( of ci"il registry $ro"ided in the old &i"il &ode ,0itle 9..) was ne"er established in this co2ntry and th2s 'rt. 131 ,0he ac6nowledge(ent of a nat2ral child (2st be (ade in the record of birth in a will or in so(e other $2blic doc2(ent) insofar as it referred to ac6nowledg(ent in the record of birth ne"er beca(e effecti"e. .t sho2ld be noted howe"er that a &i"il +egistry Law was $assed in 1930 ,'ct No. 33-3) containing $ro"isions for the registration of births incl2ding those of illegiti(ate $arentage7 and the record of birth 2nder s2ch law if s2fficient in contents for the $2r$ose wo2ld (eet the re:2isites for "ol2ntary recognition e"en 2nder 'rt. 131. Since +odolfo was born in 193- after the registry law was enacted the :2estion here really is whether or not his birth certificate which is (erely a certified co$y of the registry record (ay be relied 2$on as s2fficient $roof of his ha"ing been "ol2ntarily recogni*ed. 0he S& held that no s2ch reliance (ay be $laced 2$on it. ;hile it contains the na(es of both $arents there is no showing that they signed the original let alone swore to its contents as re:2ired in Sec. - of 'ct No. 33-3. <or all that (ight ha"e ha$$ened it was not e"en they or either of the( who f2rnished the data to be entered in the ci"il register. Petitioners say that in any e"ent the birth certificate is in the nat2re of a $2blic doc2(ent wherein "ol2ntary recognition of a nat2ral child (ay also be (ade according to the sa(e 'rticle 131. 0r2e eno2gh b2t in s2ch a case there m(#t e a !lear #tateme"t $" the do!(me"t that the *are"t re!o'"$+e# the !h$ld a# h$# or her o&"

,Madr$de-o .#. De Leo"/ 00 1h$l. 234 a"d $" the $rth !ert$f$!ate "o #(!h #tateme"t a**ear#. The !la$m of .ol("tary re!o'"$t$o" $# &$tho(t a#$#.

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