Professional Documents
Culture Documents
August 2 Digest
August 2 Digest
After the execution of the above-mentioned 2. the latter was already dead when the sale
deed of sale, the spouses Geminiano was executed without the consent of the
Pamplona and Apolonia Onte constructed plaintiffs who are the heirs of Monica.
their house on the eastern part of lot 1496
as Flaviano Moreto, at the time of the sale, The spouses Geminiano Pamplona and
pointed to it as the land which he sold to Apolonia Onte refused to vacate the
Geminiano Pamplona. Shortly thereafter, premises occupied by them and hence, this
Rafael Pamplona, son of the spouses suit was instituted by the heirs of Monica
Geminiano Pamplona and Apolonia Onte, Maniega seeking for:
also built his house within lot 1496 about 1. the declaration of the nullity of the deed
one meter from its boundary with the of sale of July 30, 1952 above-mentioned as
adjoining lot. regards one half of the property subject
matter of said deed;
The vendor Flaviano Moreto and the 2. to declare the plaintiffs as the rightful
vendee Geminiano Pamplona thought all owners of the other half of said lot;
the time that the portion of 781 square 3. to allow the plaintiffs to redeem the one-
meters which was the subject matter of their half portion thereof sold to the defendants
sale transaction was No. 1495 and so lot 'After payment of the other half of the
No. 1495 appears to be the subject matter purchase price';
in the deed of sale although the fact is that 4. to order the defendants to vacate the
the said portion sold thought of by the portions occupied by them;
parties to be lot No. 1495 is a part of lot No. 5. to order the defendants to pay actual and
1496. moral damages and attorney's fees to the
plaintiffs;
From 1956 to 1960, the spouses Geminiano 6. to order the defendants to pay plaintiffs
Pamplona and Apolonio Onte enlarged their P120.00 a year from August 1958 until they
house and they even constructed a piggery have vacated the premises occupied by
corral at the back of their said house about them for the use and occupancy of the
one and one-half meters from the eastern same.
boundary of lot 1496.
The defendants claim that the sale made by
On August 12, 1956, Flaviano Moreto died Flaviano Moreto in their favor is valid as the
intestate. In 1961, the plaintiffs demanded lot sold is registered in the name of Flaviano
on the defendants to vacate the premises Moreto and they are purchasers believing in
where they had their house and piggery on good faith that the vendor was the sole
the ground that: owner of the lot sold.
1. Flaviano Moreto had no right to sell the After a relocation of lots 1495, 1496 and
lot which he sold to Geminiano Pamplona 4545 made by agreement of the parties, it
as the same belongs to the conjugal was found out that there was mutual error
between Flaviano Moreto and the
2. Right to Demand Partition The Supreme Court held that the petitioners
i. Partition were able to prove their filiation to
Buenaventura Cristobal. The petitioners
Case 4: Cruz v. Cristobal were able to present evidence in form of
GR No 140422 witness testimonies while the respondents
August 7, 2006 did not adduce any evidence to refute the
claims of petitioners. The foregoing
Facts: evidence was able to convince the Supreme
Court that petitioners are indeed the
Petitioners are siblings and are the children children of Buenaventura Cristobal during
of Buenaventura Cristobal and her first wife, his first marriage.
while the respondents are siblings and are
also children of Buenaventura Cristobal and As to the validity of the partition, the
her second wife. Buenaventura Cristobal Supreme Court held that Section 1 of Rule
died intestate in 1930 while leaving a parcel 74 of the Rules of Court will apply. It
of land in San Juan, Manila. In 1994, provides that no extrajudicial settlement
petitioner Eliza found out that the shall be binding upon any person who
respondents had executed an extrajudicial has not participated therein or had no
partition over the subject property and notice thereof. The partition by the
transferred the title of the same to their respondents does not bind the petitioners
names. as petitioners were excluded.
They filed a complaint before the RTC On the issue of prescription, the Supreme
seeking the annulment of the deed of Court held that Article 494 of the New Civil
CA’s decision was reversed. Decision of Issue: W/N prescription lies in the case
RTC was reinstated. at bar
In order that a possession may be deemed Petitioners filed an application of title on the
adverse to the cestui que trust, or the other ground of their continuous possession of the
co-owner the following must concur property. There were no oppositors, so the
application was approved.
That he has performed unequivocal acts of
repudiation amounting to an ouster of the Subsequently, respondent claims to have a
cestui que trust or other co-owner right over the property as an heir of Leon
That such positive acts of repudiation have (since her mother is a daughter of Leon).
been made known to the cestui que trust or
other co owners When the case reached the CA, the CA
That the evidence thereon must be clear reversed decision of trial court saying that
and convincing petitioners have not acquired the land thru
acquisitive prescription.
In the present case, a mere silent
possession by a co-owner, his receipt of ISSUE:
rents, fruits or profits from the property, the WON the petitioners have acquired land
erection of buildings and fences and the thru acquisitive prescription
planting of trees thereon, and the payment
of land taxes, cannot serve as proof of HELD:
exclusive ownership, if it is not borne out of
clear, complete and conclusive evidence Petitioners claim that they have acquired
that he exercised acts of possession which acquisitive prescription by possessing and
unequivocally constituted an ouster or paying the taxes of the land. SC said that
deprivation of the rights of the co owner. tax declarations are not conclusive proofs of
ownership. SC said that tac declarations
It follows that neither the doctrine on laches cannot be sole proof because the tax
apply, for absent acquisitive prescription, declaration in their name could have been
the case is not one of ownership, in which done out of convenience for the co-owners.
case the doctrine on imprescriptibility of an
action for partition will apply. Cristina’s right According to the petitioners, there was such
to partition will therefore prosper. repudiation which was admitted by the
private respondent herself Testifying for
A: They said that I have no right to a share SC said that the case at bar did not meet all
and they won't give me my share. 3 requirements.
Q: How many years ago did you ask from CASE 9: FANGONIL-HERRERA VS
them? FANGONIL
GR 169356
A: Immediately after the death of their
father. Recit Ready
Q: That was some 20 years ago? The petitioner and respondents are siblings
and heirs to spouses Fongonil. The spouses
A: I do not know how many years ago. owned 7 parcels of land. The spouses sold
a portion of the 6th and 7th parcel of land to 2
Q: And during all that span of more than 20 different buyers with the right to repurchase.
years ago you did not file any action to The spouses died without exercising the
recover your share on the land in question? right to repurchase. As an heir, the
petitioner was able to repurchase the
A: No sir, it was only this time . parcels. The rest of the siblings prayed for
an extrajudicial partition of all 7 parcels but
For title to prescribe in favor of the co- the petitioner did not agree with how parcel
owner, however, there must be a clear 1 was divided and would want to claim sole
showing that he has repudiated the claims ownership on the 6th and 7th parcel having
of the other co-owners and that they have paid the taxes and having actual possession
been categorically advised of the exclusive despite it being under the name of their
claim he is making to the property in father. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of
question. It is only when such unequivocal the respondents saying that the petitioners
notice has been given that the period of were unable to claim adverse possession in
prescription will begin to run against the the concept of an owner where she
other co-owners and ultimately divest them voluntarily executed documents stating that
of their own title if they do not seasonably she was a mere creditor and/or co-owner.
defend it. Furthermore, possession by a co-owner is
Esteban had five children, Jose, Pedro, The petitioners suppose that the parcels '
Lorenzo, Antonio, and Sotera. Jose married had come under the category of a co-
Virginia Franco, with whom he fathered six ownership, following the death of their
children, Carmelita, Zenaida, Rodolfo, grandparents, but in that case, it has been
Manuel, Cesar, and Romeo. held that in order for prescription to set in,
the following requisites must concur: (1)
Pedro, Lorenzo, Antonio, and Sotera are the there is a clear showing that the claimant
private respondents herein while Jose's has repudiated the co-ownership; (2) he has
Lino Delima bought a lot from the friar The issuance of this new title constituted an
lands. He died and was survived by his open and clear repudiation of the trust or
brothers and sisters. co-ownership, and the lapse of ten (10)
Galileo was the caretaker of the property. years of adverse possession by Galileo
Sometime in 1953, He was able to execute Delima from February 4, 1954 was sufficient
an affidavit of extrajudicial declaration of to vest title in him by prescription. As the
heirs adjudicating to himself the parcel of certificate of title was notice to the whole
land and was able to secure the issuance of world of his exclusive title to the land, such
a TCT in his name excluding the other heirs rejection was binding on the other heirs and
This prompted the petitioners to file with the started as against them the period of
RTC to file an action reconveyance in 1968 prescription. Hence, when petitioners filed
against uncle Galileo and Vicente Delima their action for reconveyance and/or to
compel partition on February 29, 1968, such
RTC - ruled in favor of the petitioners action was already barred by prescription.