ADVIENTO V ALVAREZ.docx

ADVIENTO V ALVAREZ FACTS: 1. Miguel Miguel Alvar Alvarez, ez, now represe represente nted d by his heirs heirs fled a compla complaint int against Lydia Gaya, Adviento’s predecessorininterest, alleging that! Alva Alvarrez was was in cont contin inuo uous us,, e"clus clusiv ive e and and noto notori riou ous s possession and occupation o# land and its buildings  $he land was originally surveyed and numbered by the %adastral &urvey o# 'aga. Gaya initiated the subdivision o# the said lot without the (nowledge o# Alvarez. Gaya will#ully #ailed to noti#y Alvarez o# the cadast cadastral ral proce proceedi eding ng as the law#ul law#ul occupa occupant nt and owner. Gaya committed #raud in the obtaining the )%$. )%$. *. Lydia ydia Gaya’s Gaya’s Answe Answer! r! Alvarez had no right o# ownership. &he had been in peace#ul and continuous possession as an owner #rom 1+-. &he &he ac acuir uired imper per#ect #ect titl title e to the the land and which hich was confrmed on /une 1+-- by the %adastaral %ourt. $he case was consid consider ered ed uncont uncontest ested ed becaus because e she was the only only claimant. %0 order ordered ed regist registrat ration ion o# said said prope property rty along along with with the improvements improvements in her and her husband’s name resulting the issuance o# )%$. $hus her title has become inde#easible and can no longer be reviewed. . &ubse &ubseuen uently tly,, petiti petitione onerr %e#er %e#erino ino Advient Adviento o fled fled an Ans Answe werr in nte nterv rven enti tion on with with 2rge 2rgent nt 3raye rayerr #or #or ssu ssuan ance ce o# 3relim elimin inar ary y n4unction alleging that he acuired controversial lot against the inter interest est o# Alvar Alvarez. ez. Ad Advie viento nto traced traced his his title title to 0idel idel %u who bought the property #rom Lydia Gaya. 5e alleged that Alvarez constructed a concrete building, which he discovered was encroaching on his property. Adviento adopted the allegations o# Gaya inso#ar as they contested the ownership o# the land. 4. RTC’s decisi decision: on: Annulment o# )%$ in the name ame o# Lydia Gaya aya and subseuent titles, in the name o# 0idel %u and in the name o# %e#erino Adviento in so #ar as it covers the land ad4acent to plainti6’s land 7. 2pon appeal, appeal, %A a8rmed a8rmed 9$ 9$%’s decision. decision. -. 5ence, 5ence, this this petit petition ion.. •

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

ISSUE W/N if a i!e "as #a!id!$ %e&ise%ed' (e #a!idi$ and conc!)si#eness of (e decision %es)!in& in a dec%ee of  %e&is%aion in fa#o% of a**e!!an' (e said LRC decision *)s o %es "(ae#e% iss)es (e%e +a$ ,e/ Co+*!eeness and dee%+inaion of i!e in fa#o% of L$dia -a$a and s),se)en!$ o Ad#ieno' (e case s(o)!d (a#e ,een dis+issed and (a (e decision of RTC and CA in fa#o% of A!#a%e s(o)!d (a#e ,een dis+issed/ W/N ad+ission in (e %ia! co)% as o (e e0isence of i!e in (e% na+e' said *e%son need no o *%o#e (e% o"ne%s(i* of (e s),1ec !o. 2ELD: NO. 1. :istinction should be drawn between ta(ing 4udicial notice o#  sources, documents and materials without #ormal proo# o# the genuineness or authenticity, and ta(ing notice o# #acts related to such admissions and materials. As the appellate court e"plained! where the court fnds that it is while the source is genuine, the #acts therein are not clearly indisputable and should, there#ore be sub4ect to proo#. $he totality o# proo# adduced by the parties shows that the title o# petitioner’s predecessorininterest is bere#t o# any legal basis. *. n addition, under &ection *1 o# Act 'o. ;+- o# the L9A o# Act 'o. ;+-, the petitioner must show a8rmatively that