Scribd
Upload
298 views2 pages

Property Dispute: Hanopol vs. Pilapil

This case involves a land dispute between Iluminado Hanopol and Perfecto Pilapil. Hanopol claims ownership based on purchases in 1938 of the land from the previous owners, the Siapos. Additionally, he cites a 1958 court decision declaring him the exclusive owner. However, Pilapil asserts ownership based on a notarized deed of sale of the land from the Siapos to him in 1945, which he registered in 1948. The court ruled that the previous decision was not binding on Pilapil since he was not party to that case and acquired his rights before it. The court also found that Pilapil's registration of the deed of sale affected Hanopol's claim since there was no clear evidence Han

Uploaded by

Antonio Paolo Alvario
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
298 views2 pages

Property Dispute: Hanopol vs. Pilapil

This case involves a land dispute between Iluminado Hanopol and Perfecto Pilapil. Hanopol claims ownership based on purchases in 1938 of the land from the previous owners, the Siapos. Additionally, he cites a 1958 court decision declaring him the exclusive owner. However, Pilapil asserts ownership based on a notarized deed of sale of the land from the Siapos to him in 1945, which he registered in 1948. The court ruled that the previous decision was not binding on Pilapil since he was not party to that case and acquired his rights before it. The court also found that Pilapil's registration of the deed of sale affected Hanopol's claim since there was no clear evidence Han

Uploaded by

Antonio Paolo Alvario
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

G.R. No.

L-19248
7 SCRA 452
February 28, 1963
ILUMINADO [Link] PILAPIL,
BARRERA, J.:
Case Nature : APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First
instance of Leyte.
Facts:
Hanopol claims ownership of the land by virtue of a series of
purchases effected in 1938 by means of private instruments,
executed by the former owners surnamed Siapo. Additionally, he
invokes in his favor a decision by the CFI of Leyte (in Civil Case
No. 412) rendered on September 21, 1958, declaring him as
exclusive owner. On the other hand, Pilapil asserts title to the
property on the strength of a duly notarized deed of sale executed
in his favor by the same owners on December 3, 1945, which
deed of sale was registered in the Registry of Deeds of Leyte on
August 20, 1948 under the provisions of Act No. 3344. Issues:
1. Whether or not judgment in the former case No. 412 against
the vendors Siapos is binding upon the Pilapil
2. Whether or not the registration of the second deed of sale in
favor of Pilapil affects the right of Hanopol as the first vendee
Ruling:
1. The decision in that case is not binding as it appears from the
documentary evidence that Pilapil derived his right to the land in
1945, long before the filing of the complaint against the vendors
in 1948. He was not made a party in the case against the Siapos,
and there was not even a claim that he had knowledge of said
litigation. He cannot, therefore, be bound by such judgment in
under the Rules of Court. 2. The registration of the second deed of
sale in favor of Pilapil affects the right of Hanopol as the first
vendee. There appears to be no clear evidence of Hanopol's
possession of the land. In fact, Siapos continued to occupy the
land when they sold the same to Pilapil. Upon the execution of the
notarial deed of sale, possession was constructively transferred to

Pilapil. Thus, Hanopol cannot have a better right than Pilapil who
"was not shown to be a...

You might also like