Civil Law Review 2 Case Pool

8/13/2019 Civil Law Review 2 Case Pool

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civil-law-review-2-case-pool 1/4

PRESCRIPTION

AZNAR BROTHERS VS. HEIRS OF ANICETOAUGUSTO

Facts: The subject matter of this controversy is LotNo. 4397 owned by Aniceto Augusto who was marriedto Petrona Calipan. When Aniceto died on December3, 1934, he left behind five children: Geronimo,

Zacarias, Teoderica, Arsenia and Irenea. Apparently,the property remained undivided as evidenced byTax Declaration No. 026794 issued to PetronaCalipan in 1945.

Tax Declaration No. 02679 in the name of Calipanwas cancelled pursuant to an "ExtrajudicialPartition"5 executed before Notary Public VicenteFanilag. In lieu thereof, tax declaration certificatescovering Lot No. 4397 were issued to the following:Filomeno Augusto, Ciriaco Icoy, Felipe Aying,Zacarias Augusto, Abdon Augusto, TeodericaAugusto, Pedro Tampus and Anacleto Augusto. These

persons sold the property to petitioner AznarBrothers Realty Company (Aznar Realty) through aDeed of Sale of Unregistered Land.

Respondent Heirs filed Civil Case No. 2666-L againstpetitioner Aznar Realty, and Carlos and FilomenoAugusto in the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City, Branch 27,for (1) recovery of Lot No. 4397; (2) the declaration ofthe Deed of Sale dated February 13, 1962 as null andvoid; (3) the recognition of the Heirs; (4) thecancellation of the TCT issued to petitioner AznarRealty and (5) the issuance of a restraining order

and/or writ of preliminary injunction.

Aznar Realty filed an answer interposing the defenseof lack of cause of action and prescription. It askedfor a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defensesas if a motion to dismiss had been filed. This wasgranted by the trial court.

Issue: Whether or Not the action was barred byprescription?

Ruling: Pet.is without merit, claim is imprescriptible. Respondents anchored their action for reconveyance

in the trial court on the nullity of the Deed of Salebetween petitioner Aznar and the supposed owners ofthe property. Respondents impugned the validity ofthe document because the sellers were not the trueowners of the land.

Respondents sought the declaration of nullity(inexistence) of the Deed of Sale because of theabsence of their consent as the true and lawfulowners of the land. They argued that the sale topetitioner Aznar was void since the purported"owners" who signed the Deed of Sale as vendorswere not even heirs of Aniceto Augusto and PetronaCalipan. They pointed out that the 1945 TaxDeclaration in the name of Petrona Calipan indicatedthat the property was undivided as of the timeAniceto Augusto died in 1932.

The "owners" who sold the land to petitioner AznarRealty could not have been the true owners of theland since there was no showing how they acquiredthe land in the first place. Thus, the trial courtshould not have dismissed the complaint without

looking into the validity of the sale of land topetitioner Aznar Realty.

In actions for reconveyance of property predicatedon the fact that the conveyance complained of wasnull and void ab initio, a claim of prescription ofaction would be unavailing. The action or defense forthe declaration of the inexistence of a contract doesnot prescribe. Neither could laches be invoked in the

case at bar. Laches is a doctrine in equity and ourcourts are basically courts of law and not courts ofequity. Equity, which has been aptly described as"justice outside legality," should be applied only inthe absence of, and never against, statutory law.Aequetas nunguam contravenit legis.

The positive mandate of Art. 1410 of the New CivilCode conferring imprescriptibility to actions fordeclaration of the inexistence of a contract shouldpre-empt and prevail over all abstract argumentsbased only on equity. Respondents were evicted fromtheir land in November 1991 and they filed their

complaint with the trial court on July 28, 1992. Onlyeight months had passed from the time they wereejected to the time they asserted their rights overtheir property. They certainly could not be deemedto have slept on their rights.

Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err in settingaside the decision of the trial court and ordering thatthe case be remanded for trial.

CAPITLE VS VDA DE GABAN

Facts: Julian’s brother Zacarias died in 1984. Hewas survived by the other petitioners herein, AuroraP. vda. de Correjado, Lilia Capitle, ArtemioCorrejado, Cecilia Correjado, Rogelia Correjado(Rogelia), Sofronio Correjado, Vicente Correjado andGloria vda. de Beduna.

On November 26, 1986, petitioners filed acomplaint[1] for partition of the property anddamages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of LaCarlota City against respondents, alleging thatFabian contracted two marriages, the first with

Brigida Salenda who was the mother of Julian, andthe subsequent one with Maria Catahay (Maria) whowas the mother of Zacarias, Manuel and Francisco;that the property remained undivided even after thedeath of Julian in 1950, his children-hereinrespondents having arrogated unto themselves theuse and enjoyment of the property, to the exclusionof petitioners; and that respondents refused todeliver petitioners’ share in the property despite

demands therefor and for partition.

To the Complaint respondents countered in theirAnswer[2] that in the proceedings in the intestateestate of their great grandfather Santos Correjado,petitioners were not adjudicated any share in theproperty, for Maria, the mother of petitioners’

respective fathers Francisco and Zacarias, was just amistress of Fabian, hence, Francisco and Zacarias (aswell as Manuel) were illegitimate who were notentitled to inherit under the old Civil

RTC dismissed the complaint upon the grounds ofprescription and laches.



Issue: W/N the action has already prescribed

Ruling: ART. 1134. Ownership and other real rightsover immovable property are acquired by ordinaryprescription through possession of ten years.

Art. 1137, New Civil Code

ART. 1137. Ownership and other real rights overimmovables also prescribe through uninterruptedadverse possession thereof for thirty years, withoutneed of title or of good faith.

Assuming arguendo that petitioners’ respective

fathers Francisco and Zacarias were legitimate and,therefore, were co-owners of the property: From themoment co-owner Julian occupied in 1919 andclaimed to be the absolute and exclusive owner ofthe property and denied his brothers any sharetherein up to the time of his death in 1950, thequestion involved is no longer one of partition but of

ownership in which case imprescriptibility of theaction for partition can no longer be invoked. Theadverse possession by Julian and his successors-in-interest- herein respondents as exclusive owner ofthe property having entailed a period of about 67years at the time of the filing of the case at bar in1986, ownership by prescription had vested in them.

As for estoppel by laches which is a creation ofequity,[13] since laches cannot interfere with therunning of the period of prescription, absent anyconduct of the parties operating as estoppel,[14] in

light of the prescription of petitioners’ action,discussion thereof is dispensed with. Suffice it tostate that while laches may not be strictly appliedbetween near relatives, under the facts andcircumstances of the case, especially theuncontroverted claim of respondents that theirfather Julian, and the documented claim ofrespondent Julieta, had paid realty taxes on theproperty as exclusive owner, as well as the admissionof petitioner Rogelia that, as quoted above, she andher co-petitioners “never benefited” or were

“deprived” of any benefits from the property since

1919 up to the time of the filing of the case in 1986

before the RTC or for a period of 67 years, despitedemands therefor, even an extremely liberalapplication of laches would bar the filing of the case.

OCCEÑA VS. ESPONILLA

Facts: After the death of the Tordesillas spouses, thelot was inherited by their children Harod and Angela,and grandchildren Arnold and Lilia. In 1951, theheirs executed a Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale1 infavor of Alberta Morales covering the southwestern

portion of the lot

in 1954, Arnold and Lilia executed a Deed of DefiniteSale of Shares, Rights, Interests and Participations2over the same 748 sq. m. lot in favor of AlbertaMorales.

Alberta possessed the lot as owner, constructed ahouse on it and appointed a caretaker to oversee herproperty. Thereafter, in July 1956, vendor Arnold dela Flor borrowed the OCT from Alberta covering the

lot. He executed an Affidavit3 acknowledging receiptof the OCT in trust and undertook to return said titlefree from changes, modifications or cancellations.Arnold and Angela, nephew and daughterrespectively of the Tordesillas spouses, without theknowledge of Alberta, executed a Deed ofExtrajudicial Settlement4 declaring the two of themas the only co-owners of the undivided 1,198 sq. m.lot no. 265, without acknowledging their previous

sale of 748 sq. m. thereof to Alberta.

In 1985, vendee Alberta Morales died. Her nieces-heirs, Lydia, Elsa and Dafrosa, succeeded in theownership of the lot. Months later, as the heirs wereabout to leave for the United States, they askedArnold to deliver to them the title to the land sothey can register it in their name. Arnold repeatedlypromised to do so but failed to deliver the title tothem.

On December 4, 1986, after Alberta’s heirs left for

the States, Arnold used the OCT he borrowed from

the deceased vendee Alberta Morales, subdivided theentire lot no. 265 into three sublots, and registeredthem all under his name, viz: lot no. 265-A (with TCTNo. 16895), lot no. 265-B (with TCT No. 16896) andlot no. 265-C (with TCT No. 16897). He then paid thereal estate taxes on the property.

After the death of Arnold, the three (3) nieces-heirsof Alberta Morales learned about the second sale oftheir lot to the Occeña spouses when they werenotified by caretaker Abas that they were beingejected from the land. The heirs filed a case7 forannulment of sale and cancellation of titles, withdamages, against the second vendees Occeñaspouses. In their complaint, they alleged that theOcceñas purchased the land in bad faith as they wereaware that the lots sold to them had already beensold to Alberta Morales in 1954. They averred thatbefore the sale, when Tomas Occeña conducted anocular inspection of the lots, Morito Abas, thecaretaker appointed by Alberta Morales to overseeher property, warned them not to push through withthe sale as the land was no longer owned by vendorArnold as the latter had previously sold the lot toAlberta Morales who had a house constructed

thereon.

For their part, the Occeña spouses claimed that theOCT in the name of the original owners of the lots,the Tordesillas spouses, was cancelled after it wassubdivided between Angela and Arnold in 1969; thatnew TCTs had been issued in the latter’s names; that

they were unaware that the subject lots were alreadypreviously sold to Morales as they denied that Tomashad a talk with caretaker Abas on the matter; that asof December 4, 1987, the TCTs covering the lotswere in the name of Arnold and his wife, without anyadverse claim annotated thereon; that vendor Arnold

represented to them that the occupants they saw onthe land were squatters and that he merely toleratedtheir presence; that they did not personallyinvestigate the alleged squatters on the land andmerely relied on the representation of vendor Arnold;that sometime in 1966-1967, Arnold and his co-heirAngela caused the survey of the original lot andsubdivided it into 3 lots, without opposition fromMorales or her heirs. Thus, three (3) TCTs wereissued in 1969 to Arnold and Angela and, two of the



lots were then sold to the Occeña spouses, againwithout objection from Alberta Morales.

The Occeña spouses alleged that they were buyers ingood faith as the titles to the subject lots were freefrom liens or encumbrances when they purchasedthem. They claimed that in 1989, Arnold offered tosell the subject lots to them. On August 13, 1990,after they verified with the Antique Registry of

Deeds that Arnold’s TCTs were clean andunencumbered, Arnold signed the instrument of saleover the subject lots in favor of the Occeñas forP100,000.00 and new titles were issued in theirnames.

The Occeñas likewise set up the defenses of lachesand prescription. They argue that Alberta andplaintiffs-heirs were barred from prosecuting theiraction as they failed to assert their right for forty(40) years.

Issue: Whether Or Not The Period Of More Than

Forty (40) Years Without Positive Action Taken ByRespondents, As Well As By Alberta Morales, ToProtect Their Interest Can Be Considered Laches AndThus Their Present Action Has Prescribed Ruling: the action to annul title filed by respondents-heirs is not barred by laches and prescription.Firstly, laches is a creation of equity and itsapplication is controlled by equitable considerations.Laches cannot be used to defeat justice orperpetuate fraud and injustice. Neither should itsapplication be used to prevent the rightful owners of

a property from recovering what has beenfraudulently registered in the name of another.17Secondly, prescription does not apply when theperson seeking annulment of title or reconveyance isin possession of the lot because the action partakesof a suit to quiet title which is imprescriptible.18 Inthis case, Morales had actual possession of the landwhen she had a house built thereon and hadappointed a caretaker to oversee her property. Herundisturbed possession of the land for a period offifty (50) long years gave her and her heirs acontinuing right to seek the aid of a court of equityto determine the nature of the claim of ownership of

petitioner-spouses.

In the case at bar, Morales’ caretaker became aware

of the second sale to petitioner-spouses only in 1991when he received from the latter a notice to vacatethe land. Respondents-heirs did not sleep on theirrights for in 1994, they filed their action to annulpetitioners’ title over the land. It likewise bears to

stress that when vendor Arnold reacquired title tothe subject property by means of fraud andconcealment after he has sold it to Alberta Morales, aconstructive trust was created in favor of Moralesand her heirs. As the defrauded parties who were inactual possession of the property, an action of therespondents-heirs to enforce the trust and recoverthe property cannot prescribe. They may vindicatetheir right over the property regardless of the lapseof time.21 Hence, the rule that registration of theproperty has the effect of constructive notice to thewhole world cannot be availed of by petitioners andthe defense of prescription cannot be successfullyraised against respondents.

SALUDARES VS. CA

Facts: Pomposa died on May 1, 1923, leaving hereinpetitioners, Enrica, Petra, Restituto, Amado, Delfina,Beata, Vicenta and Isabel, all surnamed Dator, as hercompulsory heirs

Heirs and their father Juan executed a deed of extra- judicial partition of the share of Pomposa in the

Tanza estate. The settlement conferred the easternhalf of the Tanza estate to Juan and the western halfto the Heirs.Juan was in possession of the entire Tanza estate.After the partition, the Heirs took possession of theirshare and had the same tenanted by a certain MiguelDahilig, husband of Petra, one of the Heirs, who inturn managed the land in behalf of the other siblings.Juan, the father, remained in possession of his halfof the land until his death on April 6, 1940.On December 13, 1976, Isabel Dator applied for afree patent over the entire Tanza estate, includingLot 5793, in behalf of the Heirs. On May 26, 1977,

after all the requirements were complied with, theRegister of Deeds of Quezon awarded Free Patent No.4A-2-8976 and issued Original Certificate of Title(OCT) No. 0-23617 in the names of the Heirs.

Sometime in 1988, the Heirs were informed by theirtenant that private respondents cut some 50coconut trees located within the subject lot. Thus,the Heirs sent a letter,3 dated July 26, 1988, toprivate respondents demanding an explanation fortheir intrusion into their property and unauthorizedfelling of trees.

On August 25, 1988, private respondents retaliatedby filing an action for reconveyance againstpetitioners, docketed as civil case no. 88-121, in theRegional Trial Court of Lucena City. Privaterespondents alleged in their complaint that: (a) theywere the owners in fee simple and possessors of LotNo. 5793; (b) they bought the land from thesuccessors-in-interest of Petra Dator, one of theheirs; (c) they were in possession of the subject landfrom 1966 to the present and (d) petitioner IsabelDator obtained free patent OCT P-23617 over Lot5793 in favor of the Heirs by means of fraud and

misrepresentation. Thus, private respondents prayedfor the cancellation of OCT P-23617 and the issuanceof a new title in their names.

In their answer, the Heirs denied having sold anyportion of the Tanza estate to anyone. They allegedthat: (a) they and their predecessors-in-interest hadbeen and were still in actual, continuous, adverseand public possession of the subject land in theconcept of an owner since time immemorial and (b)title to Lot 5793 was issued in their favor afterfaithful compliance with all the requirementsnecessary for the issuance of a free patent.

After trial, the lower court rendered a decisiondismissing the action primarily on the ground ofprescription of action.

Issue: W/N CA erred when it did not consider thatthe complaint filed by the private respondents forreconveyance and cancellation of title before thetrial court eleven (11) years after a torrens title overthe property was issued in the name of thepetitioners (had) prescribed.



Ruling:

Documents

Civil Law Review 2 Case Pool