Scribd
Upload
842 views1 page

Shipside Inc. v. Court of Appeals 143377

This case involves a dispute over land titles to property that was originally owned by Rafael Galvez according to an original land title (OCT No. 0-381) that was later declared null and void by a court. The property was subsequently sold and titles transferred multiple times. After 24 years, the government filed a case to cancel the new land titles, arguing the original title was invalid. However, the court ruled that the government was not the real party in interest since the property in question was transferred to the Bases Conversion and Development Authority under law, making it a corporate body rather than a government agency. Therefore, the government could no longer invoke the defense of imprescriptibility since it no longer had a right or interest

Uploaded by

Rolan Klyde Kho Yap
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
842 views1 page

Shipside Inc. v. Court of Appeals 143377

This case involves a dispute over land titles to property that was originally owned by Rafael Galvez according to an original land title (OCT No. 0-381) that was later declared null and void by a court. The property was subsequently sold and titles transferred multiple times. After 24 years, the government filed a case to cancel the new land titles, arguing the original title was invalid. However, the court ruled that the government was not the real party in interest since the property in question was transferred to the Bases Conversion and Development Authority under law, making it a corporate body rather than a government agency. Therefore, the government could no longer invoke the defense of imprescriptibility since it no longer had a right or interest

Uploaded by

Rolan Klyde Kho Yap
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
  • Court Decision Overview: Presents the court case involving Shipside Incorporated, addressing the dispute over a failed real estate transaction and the resulting legal decisions.

SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. THE HON.

COURT OF APPEALS [Special


Former Twelfth Division], HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26 (San
Fernando City, La Union) & The REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents
G.R. No. 143377. February 20, 2001
MELO, J.

Facts

On October 29, 1958, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-381 was issued in favor
of Rafael Galvez, over four parcels of land Lot 1-4. Lot 1 and 4 was sold by Galves to Mamaril,
et. al. who then sold the said lots to Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company. Without knowledge
of the order issued by the Court of First Instance of La Union, declaring OCT 0-381 null and
void, Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company sold Lot 1 and 4 to the petitioner herein.

After twenty four (24) long years, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a complaint for
Revival of Judgment and cancellation of titles, arguing that since the trial court had ruled and
declared OCT No. 0-381 to be null and void, which ruling was subsequently affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, the defendants-successors-in-interest of Rafael Galvez, such as Shipside, have
no valid title over the property covered by OCT No. 0-381, and should be consequently
cancelled.

Petitioner Shipside, Inc. filed its Motion to Dismiss as one of its grounds is that the
plaintiff Republic is not the real party-in-interest because the real property, allegedly part of
Camp Wallace (Wallace Air Station), were under the ownership and administration of the Bases
Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) under Republic Act No. 7227. The Solicitor
General on the other hand states that the real party-in-interest in the case at bar being the
Republic of the Philippines, it claims it imprescriptible.

Issue

Whether or not the Republic may still invoke for the revival of judgment.

Decision

While it is true that prescription does not run against the State, the same may not be
invoked by the government in this case The Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992 and
Proclamation No. 216 provided the transfer of Wallace Air Station Areas to the BCDA making it
not a mere agency of the Government but a corporate body performing proprietary functions.

With the transfer of Camp Wallace to the BCDA, the Government no longer has a right
or interest to protect, therefore, imprescriptibility may not be raised as a defense as the same
being applicable only in cases where the government is a party in interest.

RKKY Digest

You might also like