Tan v Dela Vega.docx

 Tan  Tan v Dela Vega Vega OA: Petition for quieting of title and declration of nullity of Free Patent against heris of Macario Mencias. 199: !es"ondents learned that the defendant#heirs are e$ecting the occu"ants of the contested lot % that Mencias o&tained a title of the said lot "reviously and such has &een inherited &y his heirs. !es"ondents state that the said lot is a 'ere "ortion of their o(n lot (hich is covered &y their T)T. Plainti*#heirs state that their right to the said lot arises fro' a di*erent T)T and that !es"ondents+ assertion is incorrect. ,aid lot (as sold already &y the res"ondent#heirs to -e( Atlantis !eal state (ho $oins this "etition as co#"lainti* raising the defense of &uyers in good faith /given that the annotation (as not seen in the  T)T  T)T of the heirs0. For failure to le their Ans(er2 defendant Aurora M. 3a&at2 11 "u&lic defendants ,ecretary of the De"art'ent of nviron'ent and -atural !esources2 Director of 4and Manage'ent 5ureau and the !egister of Deeds of Mari6ina2 Mari6ina 21 (ere declared in default. 778: !es"ondents led a 'otion for $udg'ent on the "leadings2 granted. T) ruled in favor of res"ondents and ruled that free#"atent of Mencias is void and the su&sequent sale is invalid. )A ar's.

,,;:
=4D: In this case, we fnd that the trial court erred in rendering judgment on the pleadings because the pleadings fled by the parties generated ostensible issues that necessitate the presentation o evidence. !es"ondents+ action for declaration of nullity of Free Patent -o. >9?@9 and the titles derived therefro' is &ased on their clai' that the lot titled in the na'e of "etitioners2 is a "ortion of a &igger tract of land "reviously titled in the na'e of their /res"ondents0 "redecessors#in# interest. t is clear fro' the foregoing that the "leadings led in the instant case generated the follo(ing issues: /10 (hether res"ondents+ T)T -o. ?1? is validB /0 (hether 4ot C9 is covered &y T)T -o. ?1?B and /80 (hether "etitioners are "urchasers in good faith. This is clearly not a proper case or  judgment on the pleadings considering considering that the Answers tendered actual issues. The issues. The trial court rendered a su''ary $udg'ent on March 12 778 and not a $udg'ent on the "leadings. In any case, a summary judgment is likewise not warranted in this case as there are genuine issues which call or a ull blown trial. A trial.  A genuine issue is an issue of fact (hich requires the "resentation of evidence as distinguished fro' a sha'2 ctitious2 contrived or false clai'. ?7>@2 (hich "er verication fro' the !egister of Deeds of  !iEal "ertain to a di*erent "iece of land 'easuring only a&out 8?@ square 'eters and located in ,an

 uan2 !iEal. These allegations (ere never refuted &y res"ondents2 hence2 they cannot &e si'"ly &rushed aside &y the trial court.