Scribd
Upload
208 views1 page

Romero V Singson

The case involves a dispute over ownership of a property between siblings. The petitioners were occupying the property since birth while the respondent took up residence elsewhere after marriage. A deed of sale was executed transferring the property to the respondent but the petitioners claimed it was a forgery. The court found the deed to be null and void, ruling the property remained owned by the original owners and their heirs, making the petitioners and respondent co-owners.

Uploaded by

Angeli
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
208 views1 page

Romero V Singson

The case involves a dispute over ownership of a property between siblings. The petitioners were occupying the property since birth while the respondent took up residence elsewhere after marriage. A deed of sale was executed transferring the property to the respondent but the petitioners claimed it was a forgery. The court found the deed to be null and void, ruling the property remained owned by the original owners and their heirs, making the petitioners and respondent co-owners.

Uploaded by

Angeli
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Romero v Singson

Facts:
 Petitioners and Respondent are siblings. Their parents owned the subject property which the
petitioners and other siblings were actually occupying since birth.
 Respondent took up residence in Mandaluyong after getting married.
 An absolute deed of sale executed on 2006 between their parents (died during 1981 and 1997) as
sellers and the respondent as buyer.
 Respondent sent letters to the siblings demanding to vacate the property.
 Petitioners filed for annulment and cancellation of the deed of sale claiming that there was
forgery and that as heirs, they were the true owners of the subject property.
Issues:
 Should the petition be denied for lack of attempts at compromise?
Held:
 No. If the opposing party fails to raise such defect in a motion to dismiss, such defect is deemed
waived.
 While it is true that respondent has in her favor a Torrens title over the subject property, she
nonetheless acquired no right or title in her favor by virtue of the null and void June 6, 2006 deed.
(Clear forgery)
 Since respondent acquired no right over the subject property, the same remained in the name of
the original registered owners, Macario and Felicidad. Being heirs of the owners, petitioners and
respondent thus became, and remain co-owners - by succession - of the subject property. As such,
petitioners may exercise all attributes of ownership over the same, including possession - whether
de facto or dejure; respondent thus has no right to exclude them from this right through an action
for ejectment.

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