Scribd
Upload
905 views2 pages

DoL Vs Buyco

This case involved a land dispute over property that was inherited and donated to Edgar and Samuel Buyco, who had become naturalized American citizens. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents did not have a vested right or imperfect title to the land before losing their Philippine citizenship. Specifically: 1) The property was inherited from Charles Hankins and acquired through inheritance and donation, but the respondents did not prove open, continuous, exclusive possession of the land for 30 years prior to filing for registration as required by law. 2) At the time of filing for registration in 1976, the respondents did not have an imperfect title to the claimed inherited property. 3) They also did not prove the required possession for the

Uploaded by

oabeljeanmonique
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
905 views2 pages

DoL Vs Buyco

This case involved a land dispute over property that was inherited and donated to Edgar and Samuel Buyco, who had become naturalized American citizens. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents did not have a vested right or imperfect title to the land before losing their Philippine citizenship. Specifically: 1) The property was inherited from Charles Hankins and acquired through inheritance and donation, but the respondents did not prove open, continuous, exclusive possession of the land for 30 years prior to filing for registration as required by law. 2) At the time of filing for registration in 1976, the respondents did not have an imperfect title to the claimed inherited property. 3) They also did not prove the required possession for the

Uploaded by

oabeljeanmonique
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
You are on page 1/ 2

Director of Lands v.

Buyco
G.R. No. 91189; November 27, 1992

FACTS:

A certain Charles Hankins, an American who was married to Laura Crescini, died
leaving a will and was survived by his widow; his son Alexander and William; and his
grandchildren Ismael Samuel and Edgar, all surnamed Buyco, who are the legitimate issues
of his deceased daughter Lilia and her husband Marcelino Buyco. Charles Hankins' son
Alexander was appointed administrator of the estate in special Proceedings.

Laura Crescini died and her share in the estate of her husband Charles was
partitioned among her children: Alexander and William, and her grandchildren, Ismael,
Samuel and Edgar who were represented by their father Marcelino Buyco.Thereafter, on
the same date, William sold his hereditary shares in the estate of his parents to Marcelino
Buyco. Marcelino Buyco donated to his children the property acquired from William
together with other properties. The Buyco brothers partitioned among themselves the
properties acquired by inheritance from their grandparents and by donation from their
father. However, Ismael waived his right to his share therein in favor of Samuel, one of the
private respondents in this case.

Edgar and Samuel Buyco became naturalized American citizens on 29 January 1972
and 12 September 1975, respectively. On 14 October 1967, Edgar and Samuel, through
their attorney-in-fact, Rieven H. Buyco, filed before the then Court of First Instance of
Romblon an application for the registration of a parcel of land, which they claim to own in
fee simple as they acquired the same by inheritance and donation inter vivos.

ISSUE:

Whether the respondents had vested right through an imperfect title before they
lost Philippine citizenship

RULING:

No. Verily, private respondents had to rely exclusively on their own possession.
under the applicable law at the time, it was incumbent upon them to prove that they had
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
agricultural land of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership
for at least thirty (30) years immediately preceding the filing of the applications for
confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force majeure. To be thus benefited
by the possession of William or Marcelino for purposes of Section 48 (b) of the Public Land
Act, there should be proof that said predecessors had been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation thereof. Unfortunately, no such proof was
offered.
It is palpably obvious then that at the time Land Registration Case No. N-48 was
filed in the Regional Trial Court of Romblon on 14 October 1976, private respondents did
not have in their favor an imperfect title over that which they claimed to have inherited, by
representation, from the estate of Charles Hankins. With greater force does this conclusion
likewise apply with respect to the properties donated to them in 1962 by their father
Marcelino Buyco. This is because they were not able to prove open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation thereof under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership for at least thirty (30) years immediately preceding the filing of the application,
43 or from 12 June 1945.

Considering that the private respondents became American citizens before such filing, it
goes without saying that they had acquired no vested right, consisting of an imperfect title
over to property before they lost their Philippine citizenship.

You might also like