8/13/2019 #1 Vizarra vs. Rodriguez (Digest)

1/2

SPOUSES ANTONIO VIZARRA and BRENDA LOGATOC VIZARRA, TOMAS

VIZARRA, JESUS PASTORAL, and MIGUEL RICAFRANCA, Petitioners s!

CONC"ITA R! RODRIGUEZ and EVEL#N R! RODRIGUEZ, Res$ondents!

G!R! No! %&'(%&! De)e*+er , -((.

Fa)ts/

Manuel Vizarra filed a complaint before the CFI against Conchita for recovery of possession of

real property, claiming that he was the owner of an unregistered parcel of land in Marinduque.e further asserted he and !tty. Clemente "odriguez #Conchita$s late husband% entered into a

bilateral written agreement allowing the latter to enter the land for purposes of locating mineral

deposits therein. &hen !tty. "odriguez died, his widow illicitly retained possession of the land

and appropriated the fruits of the fruit'bearing trees.

In answer, Conchita asserted ownership over the (),*** sqm. property covered by a +a

-eclaration under the name of her deceased father, Vicente "osales. he added that Manuel had

ceased to be the lawful owner of most of the land when he voluntarily subdivided the landbetween him and his seven children.

In /012, Manuel caused the consolidation of the eight ta declarations of the Vizarras into a

single ta declaration in his name. +en years after, CFI declared Conchita as the true owner of

the disputed land. ! writ of eecution was issued ordering petitioners to refrain from entering thedisputed property. +hereafter, Manuel died and was substituted by his heirs.

In /034, Conchita and her daughter 5velyn filed an action for in6unction and damages, alleging

that petitioners, along with 7* others, repeatedly entered the sub6ect properties, harvestedcoconuts to be processed into copra and appropriate the fruits to themselves.

8etitioners, on the other hand, narrated that the sub6ect properties were actually purchased bypetitioner spouses !ntonio and 9renda Vizarra from the provincial government of Marinduque

in a public auction sale conducted on 74 !pril /0)0, which became final one year after.

Interestingly, the auction sale resulted from the failure of Manuel to pay the real property taes,even though the CFI had ruled that it was Conchita "odriguez who had actually owned one of

the sub6ect properties.

/n /00/, "+C rendered a decision finding that the parcels of land in dispute were owned byConchita. +he Court of !ppeals affirmed in toto the 6udgment of the "+C.

Iss0e/

Is the auction sale valid:

"e1d/

8arenthetically, when the provincial assessor failed to serve a separate notice to Conchita ; the

true and lawful owner ; that her land was to be auctioned off due to non'payment of real estate

8/13/2019 #1 Vizarra vs. Rodriguez (Digest)

2/2

taes, he violated ection )2 of 8residential -ecree