Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 801 views

    Juliana Caragay Layno vs. C.A. Salvador Estrada

    Uploaded by

    Pepper Potts
    1) Juliana Caragay and her family had openly and continuously possessed a 3,732 square-meter disputed portion of land for over 45 years until 1966 when they were informed the land was registered under another's name. 2) Evidence showed the disputed portion was mistakenly included in the title of Mariano de Vera, as removing its area from the title would match the area listed in his estate inventory. 3) An action to quiet title to property in one's possession, like Juliana's over 50 years of possession of the disputed land, is imprescriptible and she could properly seek reconveyance of the land that was wrongfully registered under another.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Juliana Caragay Layno vs. C.A. Salvador Estrada

    Uploaded by

    Pepper Potts
    801 views2 pages
    1) Juliana Caragay and her family had openly and continuously possessed a 3,732 square-meter disputed portion of land for over 45 years until 1966 when they were informed the land was registered under another's name. 2) Evidence showed the disputed portion was mistakenly included in the title of Mariano de Vera, as removing its area from the title would match the area listed in his estate inventory. 3) An action to quiet title to property in one's possession, like Juliana's over 50 years of possession of the disputed land, is imprescriptible and she could properly seek reconveyance of the land that was wrongfully registered under another.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Juliana Caragay Layno vs. C.a. Salvador Estrada

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Juliana Caragay and her family had openly and continuously possessed a 3,732 square-meter disputed portion of land for over 45 years until 1966 when they were informed the land was registered under another's name. 2) Evidence showed the disputed portion was mistakenly included in the title of Mariano de Vera, as removing its area from the title would match the area listed in his estate inventory. 3) An action to quiet title to property in one's possession, like Juliana's over 50 years of possession of the disputed land, is imprescriptible and she could properly seek reconveyance of the land that was wrongfully registered under another.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    801 views2 pages

    Juliana Caragay Layno vs. C.A. Salvador Estrada

    Uploaded by

    Pepper Potts
    1) Juliana Caragay and her family had openly and continuously possessed a 3,732 square-meter disputed portion of land for over 45 years until 1966 when they were informed the land was registered under another's name. 2) Evidence showed the disputed portion was mistakenly included in the title of Mariano de Vera, as removing its area from the title would match the area listed in his estate inventory. 3) An action to quiet title to property in one's possession, like Juliana's over 50 years of possession of the disputed land, is imprescriptible and she could properly seek reconveyance of the land that was wrongfully registered under another.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CASE #4. An action to quiet title to property in one's possession is imprescriptible.

    CARAGAY-LAYNO V. CA
    G.R. No. L-52064 December 26, 1984
    MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.
    FACTS:

    1. The Disputed Portion is a 3,732 square-meter-area of a bigger parcel of


    sugar and coconut land, with a total area of 8,752 square meters, situated
    at Calasiao, Pangasinan. The entire parcel is covered by Original
    Certificate of Title No. 63, and includes the adjoining Lots 2 and 3, issued on
    11 September 1947 in the name of Mariano M. DE VERA, who died in 1951
    without issue. His intestate estate was administered first by his widow and
    later by her nephew, respondent Salvador Estrada.
    2. Petitioner, JULIANA Caragay, and the decedent, Mariano DE VERA, were
    first cousins.
    3. DE VERA's widow filed in Special Proceedings of the former Court of First
    Instance of Pangasinan, Branch III, an Inventory of all properties of the
    deceased, which included "a parcel of land in the poblacion of Calasiao,
    Pangasinan, containing an area of 5,417 square meters.
    4. Because of the discrepancy in area mentioned in the Inventory as 5,147
    square meters (as filed by the widow), and that in the title as 8,752 square
    meters, ESTRADA repaired to the Disputed Property and found that the
    northwestern portion, subsequently surveyed to be 3,732 square meters,
    was occupied by petitioner-spouses Juliana Caragay Layno and Benito
    Layno. ESTRADA demanded that they vacate the Disputed Portion since it
    was titled in the name of the deceased DE VERA, but petitioners refused
    claiming that the land belonged to them and, before them, to JULIANA's
    father Juan Caragay.
    5. ESTRADA then instituted suit against JULIANA for the recovery of the
    Disputed Portion, which she resisted, mainly on the ground that the
    Disputed Portion had been fraudulently or mistakenly included in OCT No.
    63, so that an implied or constructive trust existed in her favor. She then
    counterclaimed for reconveyance of property in the sense that title be
    issued in her favor.
    6. Trial Court rendered judgment ordering JULIANA to vacate the Disputed
    Portion.Although Section 102 of Act 496 allows a Petition to compel a
    Trustee to reconvey a registered land to the cestui que trust, this remedy is
    no longer available to Juliana Caragay. Mariano de Vera's land, Lot 1, was
    registered on September 11, 1947 and it was only on March 28, 1967 when
    the defendants filed their original answer that Caragay sought the
    reconveyance to her of the 3,732 square meters. Thus, her claim for
    reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust has prescribed after
    10 years. In other words, Mariano de Vera's Original Certificate of Title No.
    63 has become indefeasible.On appeal respondent Appellate Court
    affirmed the Decision.

    ISSUE:
    WON the action for reconveyance which, in effect, seeks to quiet title to
    the property has prescribed.

    HELD:

    NO. The evidence discloses that the Disputed Portion was originally
    possessed openly, continuously and uninterruptedly in the concept of an owner
    by Juan Caragay, the deceased father of JULIANA,based on Tax Declaration
    beginning with the year 1921, Realty taxes were also religiously paid from 1938 to
    1972. Tacking the previous possession of her father to her own, they had been in
    actual open, continuous and uninterrupted possession in the concept of owner
    for about forty five (45) years, until said possession was disturbed in 1966 when
    ESTRADA informed JULIANA that the Disputed Portion was registered in Mariano
    DE VERA's name.

    The mistake is confirmed by the fact that deducting 3,732 sq. ms., the area
    of the Disputed Portion from 8,752 sq. ms., the area of Lot 1 in OCT No. 63, the
    difference is 5,020 sq. ms., which closely approximates the area of 5,147 sq. ms.,
    indicated in the Inventory of Property of DE VERA. In fact, the widow by limiting
    the area in said Inventory to only 5,147 sq. ms., in effect, recognized and admitted
    that the Disputed Portion of 3,132 sq. ms., did not form part of the decedent's
    estate.

    JULIANA, whose property had been wrongfully registered in the name of


    another, but which had not yet passed into the hands of third parties, can
    properly seek its reconveyance.

    The remedy of the landowner whose property has been wrongfully or


    erroneously registered in another's name is, after one year from the date of the
    decree, not to set aside the decree, but, respecting the decree as
    incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the
    ordinary court of justice for reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the
    hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages.

    Prescription cannot be invoked against JULIANA for the reason that as


    lawful possessor and owner of the Disputed Portion, her cause of action for
    reconveyance which, in effect, seeks to quiet title to the property, falls within
    settled jurisprudence that an action to quiet title to property in one's possession is
    imprescriptible. Her undisturbed possession over a period of fifty two (52) years
    gave her a continuing right to seek the aid of a Court of equity to determine the
    nature of the adverse claim of a third party and the effect on her own title.

    You might also like