7/23/2019 68 - Santos vs. Buenconsejo
1/2
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-20136 June 23, 1965
IN RE: PETITION FOR ISSUNCE OF SEPRTE CERTIFICTE OF TITLE.
JOSE . SNTOS ! "#$%,petitioner-appellant,vs.NTOLIO
&UENCONSEJO, ET L.,respondents-appellees.
Segundo C. Mastrili for petitioner-appellant.Manuel Calleja
Rafael S. Lucila and Jose T. Rubio for respondents-appellees.
CONCEPCION, J.:
Petitioner Jose A. Santos !ia" see#s the reversal of an order of
the Court of $irst %nstance of Alba,denin& his petition, filed
in Cadastral Case No. M-'()*, +RC Cad. Rec. No. (, for the
cancellation ofori&inal certificate of title No. R/-010 2'''3,
issued in the na4e of Anatolio Buenconse5o, +oren"o Bonand
Santia&o Bon, and coverin& +ot No. ()(* of the Cadastral
Surve of 6abaco, Alba, and the issuancein lieu thereof, of a
separate transfer certificate of title in his na4e, coverin&
part of said +ot No. ()(*,na4el +ot No. ()(*-A of Subdivision Plan
PS!-7*).
6he 4ain facts are not disputed. 6he are set forth in the order
appealed fro4, fro4 8hich 8e 9uote:
%t appears that the afore4entioned +ot No. ()(* covered b
/ri&inal Certificate of 6itle No. R/-010 2'''3 8as
ori&inall o8ned in co44on b Anatolio Buenconse5o to the e;tent
of s clai4 is clearl untenable, for: 2(3 said special po8er
ofattorne authori"ed hi4 to act on behalf of the children of
Anatolio Buenconse5o, and, hence, it could nothave possibl vested
in hi4 an propert ri&ht in his o!nna4e= 2'3 the children of
Anatolio Buenconse5o
7/23/2019 68 - Santos vs. Buenconsejo
2/2
had no authorit to e;ecute said po8er of attorne, because their
father is still alive and, in fact, he andhis 8ife opposed the
petition of Santos= 23 in conse9uence of said po8er of attorne 2if
valid3 andrede4ption, Santos could have ac9uired no 4ore than the
sharepro indivisoof Anatolio Buenconse5o in+ot No. ()(*, so that
petitioner cannot 8ithout the confor4it of the other co-o8ners
2+oren"o andSantia&o Bon3, or a 5udicial decree of partition
issued pursuant to the provisions of Rule 7) of the ne8Rules of
Court 2Rule *( of the old Rules of Court3 8hich have not been
follo8ed B Santos ad5udicateto hi4self in fee si4ple a deter4inate
portion of said +ot No. ()(*, as his share therein, to the
e;clusionof the other co-o8ners.
%nas4uch as the appeal is patentl devoid of 4erit, the order
appealed fro4 is hereb affir4ed, 8ith treblecost a&ainst
petitioner-appellant Jose A. Santos !ia". %t is so ordered.
Beng"on, C.J., Re#es, J.B.L., $i"on, Regala, Ma%alintal,
Beng"on, J.&., and 'aldivar, JJ., concur.Bautista ngelo,
Barrera and &aredes, JJ., too% no part.
6he +a8phil Pro5ect - Arellano +a8 $oundation
