But you're a law student...

It's a sunday, sabbath day, rest day. You should be in the mall with your family. Attend church service. Eat in a nice restaurant. Or better yet, catch up on your favorite series or watch the latest movie.

You are tired. It's 2 in the morning. You've been reading since 6 p.m. It's your fourth cup of coffee. You're body says stop but your mind says go. You're nearing a melt down.

You have a high fever. Any amount of coffee can't take away the weakness. You want to sleep all day.

But you can't! You're a law student! Our professor in agency told us one saturday. It's a simple phrase but goes right to the very essence of what Ateneo Law stands for. We are expected to be diligent students. We need to be, because the professors push us to our limits - giving unreasonable case assignments, making complex exam questions, and difficult recit questions. There are moments when the mere thought of the work load is enough to overwhelm your mind.

We're law students. We can't complain. Now you know why the world revolves around law school.

Noli Aurillo: poetry in motion

Our prof. in Sales, Atty. Dy, suggested that we watch Noli Aurillo's videos in youtube. Being a guitarist myself, I was curious how good Aurillo really is so I watched it. I thought Atty. Dy was just exaggerating when he said Noli Aurillo is the best guitarist in the Philippines but now I totally understand what he meant. He's so good that I realize how much unskilled I am.

Aurillo is the best not only because he is very skilled but also because there is poetry by the way he strums, plucks, and even the way he moves his wrists. If Atty. Dy would ask me in one word how to describe Aurillo's music, I'd say: mesmerizing.

What are you waiting for watch the videos now!!

Cabrera vs. CA 163 SCRA 214

Cabrera vs. Court of Appeals, and Felisa Gonzaga, Fernando Gonzaga, Aurora Gonzaga, et al.

163 SCRA 214

June 30, 1988

Facts: The parcel of land in dispute was originally owned by Diego and Patricio Gonzaga, the grandparents of the private respondents herein. In 1921, the tax declaration was in the name of the spouses Gonzaga. In 1944 it was made in the name of their child Eliseo Gonzaga. In 1953, it was changed again in the name of Joaquin Cabrera.

In 1970, private respondents filed a complaint for recovery of the property from the petitioners in the Court of First Instance. They claimed the property by right of succession. Petitioners claimed by virtue of an alleged sale between them and Eliseo.

During the pendency of the complaint, private respondents’ request that the figures “1960” be changed to “1969” was approved without opposition from Cabrera.

CFI decided in favor of private respondents herein. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

Note: A separate action for registration of the land instituted by Cabrera was pending when the case at the CFI was being heard.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the complaint is barred by laches or prescription?

2. Whether the tax declarations serve as constructive notice because of their nature as public instruments?

3. Whether the action for reconveyance was prematurely filed?

Held:

1. No. The amendment requested by private respondents was allowed without objection from the petitioners. Moreover, this defense should have been pleaded before the amendment was made.

2. No. The Court said it’s strange doctrine that every one is deemed charged with knowledge of every public document simply because it is public in nature. There is no jurisprudence to support the claim.

3. No. The action for reconveyance may be filed even before the issuance of decree of registration. There is no reason why one has to wait for the land to be registered before filing such remedy.

Cabrera’s claim that respondents had no valid grounds to support the action for reconveyance is untenable. The latter had established that the transfer of the land had been made under fraudulent circumstances. They also proved that they didn’t receive notice of the registration proceedings and that no notice had been posted on the subject land as required by law.

You're not an ateneo law student if:

Carrantes vs. CA (digest)

Maximino Carrantes vs. Court of Appeals, Bilad Carrantes, Lauro Carrantes, Eduardo Carrantes, and Michael Tumpao

76 SCRA 514

Facts: Mateo Carantes, original owner of Lot No. 44 situated at Loakan, Baguio City, died in 1913 leaving his widow Ogasia, and six children, namely, Bilad, Lauro, Crispino, Maximino, Apung and Sianang,. In 1930, the government, in order to expand the landing field of the Loakan Airport, filed for the expropriation of a portion of Lot. No. 44. Said lot was subdivided into Lots. No. 44A to 44E for the purpose.

In 1913, Maximino Carrantes (MAX) was appointed the judicial administrator of the estate of Mateo. Four heirs, namely, Bilad, Lauro, Sianang, and Crisipino, executed a deed denominated “Assignment of Right to Inheritance” assigning to Max their rights over said lot in 1939. The stated monetary consideration is P1.00. On same date, Max sold Lot Nos. 44B and 44C to the government. One year later the Court of First Instance, upon joint petition of the Carrantes heirs, issued an order cancelling O.C.T. No. 3 and TCT No. 2533 was issued in its place.

On 16 March 1940, Max registered the deed of “Assignment of Right to Inheritance”. Thus, TCT No. 2533 was cancelled and TCT 2540 was issued in the name of Max. A formal deed of Sale was also executed by Max on the same date in favor of the government. Hence, TCT 2540 was cancelled and new TCTs were issued in favor of the government and Max, respectively. On 4 Sept. 1958, Bilad, Lauro, and Crispino, along with the surviving heirs of Apung and Sianang filed complaint in the CFI.

They claimed that the execution of the deed of assignment was attended by fraud. The trial court decided that the action of the heirs had already prescribed since an action on fraud prescribes on four years from discovery of such, in this case, on 16 March 1940 when Max registered the deed of assignment. The Court of Appeals reversed and found that a constructive trust was created. Hence, the present petition.

Issue: 1. whether a constructive trust involves a fiduciary relationship? 2. Whether action had already prescribed?

Held: 1. The court, assuming that there was fraud, and in turn, a constructive trust in favor of the other heirs, said that constructive trust does not involve a promise nor fiduciary relations. Hence, the respondent court’s conclusion that the rule on constructive notice does not apply because there was a fiduciary relationship between the parties lacks the necessary premise.

2. Action had already prescribed because there was constructive notice to the heirs when Maximino registered the deed of assignment with the register of deeds on 16 March 1940. Such date is the reckoning point of counting prescription based on fraud.

Anent respondent court’s contention that constructive trust is imprescriptible, the court said that it is untenable. It is already settled that constructive trusts prescribes in 10 years. In this case, the ten year period started on 16 March 1940. And since the respondents commenced the action only on 4 Sept. 1958, the same is barred by prescription.

***photo borrowed from: (http://k53.pbase.com/o6/78/737778/1/73028960.j0oF4nm7.Rnwy27021606113014BAG.jpg