Vda. de Alberto vs. Court of Appeals (1989) : Topic: Prescription - Limitations and Extent of Prescription

Vda. De Alberto vs.
Court of Appeals (1989)

Topic: Prescription – Limitations and Extent of Prescription
FACTS:
 Antonio J. Alberto, Jr. (respondent), a minor, 18 years of age, assisted by his mother
Andrea Jongco as his natural guardian, filed a complaint for acknowledgment and
partition filed on September 8, 1960 against Natividad Del Rosario Vda. De Alberto
(petitioner).
 In the complaint, Antonio J. Alberto, Jr. alleged that in 1941, his alleged father,
Antonio C. Alberto and his mother, lived together as husband and wife and as a
result of which, he was born on September 10, 1942. During that time, his alleged
father and mother lived together as husband and wife up to the time of his birth,
having no legal impediment to each other. His alleged father was also supporting
them and introducing him to the public as his natural child, even being recognized by
his father’s family as such.
 On or about the year 1944, Antonio J. Alberto, Jr.’s father and mother separated. His
father married Natividad del Rosario (petitioner) and as a result of the marriage, two
children were born – Lourdes Alberto and Antonio Alberto, Jr. (co-petitioners).
 Antonio J. Alberto, Jr. alleges that although his father separated from his mother, he
continued to support him and recognized him as his own child. When his father died
on July 3, 1949 and without notice to him, Del Rosario Vda. De Alberto instituted an
intestate proceeding for the estate of his deceased father and deliberately omitted
him as one of the heirs. Thus, as a result, they succeeded in having the properties of
his deceased father adjudicated and partitioned among themselves.
 Antonio J. Alberto, Jr. further alleged that his father left properties valued at
P74,963.81 and as a natural child, he is entitled to at least P18,000. He prayed that
the petitioners be ordered to acknowledge him as the natural child of Antonio C.
Alberto and that his one-fourth share be turned over to him.
 On September 21, 1960, the petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds
that (1) the cause of action is barred by prior judgment; and (2) that the cause of
action is also barred by the statute o limitation. The private respondents filed an
opposition. The trail court issued an Order denying the Motion to Dismiss.
 On August 10, 1964, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners
and dismissed the complaint against them. The private respondents appealed to the
CA, which reversed the decision of the trial court. The CA declared that Antonio J.
Alberto, Jr. an acknowledged natural child of the deceased Antonio C. Alberto, is the
owner pro-indiviso of (1/5) of the hereditary estate of the latter and ordered the
petitioners to deliver to Antontio J. Alberto, Jr. his (1/5) share in the said estate,
subject to the usufructuary rights of the petitioners.
 The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied. Hence,
this instant petition.
ISSUE: W/N Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent Alberto Jr.’s case of action
had not yet prescribed, assuming that the trial court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of
the instant case. (YES)
 Art. 1100 provides that “The action for rescission on account of lesion shall prescribe
after four years from the time the partition was made.”
 The intestate proceedings were terminated on November 9, 1953 so the said four
years prescriptive period expired on November 9, 1957. Hence, the present action
filed on September 8, 1960 is already barred by prescription.
 It has also been ruled in the case of Samson vs. Araneta, that the four years period
provided in Art. 1110 should commence to run from the approval of the agreement
of partition by the Court. In this case, it is evident that the action to rescind the
Agreement of Partition which was approved on November 9, 1953, had already
prescribed when the private respondent filed the complaint in the case at bar on
September 8, 1960.
 Art. 494 provides, as a general rule, that the action for partition among co-owners
does not prescribe so long as the co-ownership is expressly or impliedly recognized.
However, the petitioners in this case had never recognized the private respondent as
a co-owner or co-heir either expressly or impliedly. Thus, the rule on non-
prescription of action for partition of property owned in common does not apply
here.
 Similarly, the private respondent cannot invoke the effects of prescription on the
plea of minority under Art. 1108 of the New Civil Code which provides: “Prescription,
both acquisitive and extinctive, runs against: (1) Minors and other incapacitated
persons who have parents, guardians or other legal representatives…” Antonio J.
Alberto, Jr. who has a living parent (Jongco), who filed the complaint in the case at
bar in his behalf, falls squarely under the aforementioned provision.
 Assuming, arguendo, that the private respondent is a natural child of the deceased
Antonio C. Alberto, the action for recognition of natural child may be brought only
during the lifetime of the presumed parent. Under Art. 286, if the presumed parent
died during the minority of the child, the child may file the action within 4 years from
the attainment of majority. However, it was held in the case of Wenzel v. Surigao
Consolidated Mining, that if the minor has a guardianship, (as in this case),
prescription runs against him even during his minority. In such case, the action for
recognition must be instituted within 4 years after the death of the natural father.
 Here, Antonio C. Alberto, Jr. died on July 3, 1949. The complaint for acknowledgment
and partition was filed on September 8, 1960 or 11 years later. Evidently, the
prescription had set in.
 Even grating that Art. 1104 does not apply and there is injury to the rights of the
plaintiff, this action would still not prosper under Arts. 1146 and 1149 which provide
that the action must be brought within 4 to 5 years, respectively, from the time the
right of action accrues.
DISPOSITIVE: Decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Vda. de Alberto vs. Court of Appeals (1989) : Topic: Prescription - Limitations and Extent of Prescription

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vda. de Alberto vs. Court of Appeals (1989) : Topic: Prescription - Limitations and Extent of Prescription

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vda. de Alberto vs. Court of Appeals (1989) : Topic: Prescription - Limitations and Extent of Prescription

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vda. De Alberto vs.

Court of Appeals (1989)

You might also like