Heirs of Segunda Maningding vs. CA, et al., GR No.

12157 July 31, 1997 conveyed both parcels as one-half (1/2) of each parcel rightfully
belonged to Segunda Maningding and her heirs.
FACTS
The CA reversed the ruling, declaring the donation and sales valid. Later
This case involved 2 parcels of land: a riceland and sugarland in on, the court reversed itself by declaring the donation void for failure to
Pangasinan. The heirs of Segunda claim that they own the disputed lands comply with the necessary requirements. However, it ruled that the
together with the Buazons. properties belonged to Roque Bauzon by virtue of acquisitive
prescription.
Respondent Buazons aver that:
1. Their father, Roque Buazon, acquired the land by virtue of a deed of ISSUE: Whether or not Roque Bauzon acquired ownership over the
donation propter nuptias. subject properties by acquisitive prescription
2. Segunda Maningding, Maria Maningding, Juan Maningding and Roque
Buazon co-owned the lands as heirs of Ramon Roque. Roque Buazon RULING:
allegedly repudiated the co-ownership of the sugarland in 1965 and Yes. While prescription among co-owners cannot take place when the
repudiated it to himself… and later on, Juan and Maria Maningding acts of ownership exercised are vague and uncertain, such prescription
renounced and even Segunda quitclaimed their shares in the Riceland in arises and produces all its effects when the acts of ownership do not
favor of R. Buazon. evince any doubt as to the ouster of the rights of the other co-owners.
3. Subsequently, Roque Bauzon transferred the riceland to his son Luis
Bauzon and the sugarland to his daughter Eriberta Bauzon (the In the instant case, Roque Bauzon possessed the subject parcels of land
respondents in this case), both transactions being evidenced by deeds of in the concept of owner by virtue of the donation propter nuptias. The
sale. possession was public as it was Roque Bauzon who personally tilled and
cultivated the lots. The acts of reaping the benefits of ownership were
On 31 July 1979 Segunda Maningding died. Her heirs allegedly manifest and visible to all. These acts were made more pronounced and
discovered the transfers made by Roque Bauzon in favor of his children public considering that the parcels of land are located in a municipality
only in 1986. Consequently, the heirs sought the partition of the wherein ownership and possession are particularly and normally known
properties as well as the accounting of the produce but were to the community. Roque peacefully possessed the properties as he was
unsuccessful. never ousted therefrom nor prevented from enjoying their fruits. His
possession was uninterrupted and in good faith because of his
The trial court awarded both parcels to Segunda Maningding and Roque well-founded belief that the donation propter nuptias was properly
Bauzon as co-owners in equal shares after finding that Juan Maningding executed and the grantors were legally allowed to convey their respective
and Maria Maningding had already executed an Affidavit of Quitclaim and shares in his favor. He likewise appropriated to himself the whole
Renunciation. It rejected the deed of donation for failure to prove its due produce of the parcels of land to the exclusion of all others.
execution and authenticity and nullified the deed of sale by Roque Buazon
to his children. It concluded that Roque Bauzon could not have validly
As disclosed by the records, Roque Bauzon and his heirs possessed the
property from 1948 to 1986 to the exclusion of petitioners who were
never given their shares of the fruits of the properties, for which reason
they demanded an accounting of the produce and the conveyance to
them of their shares. Unfortunately they slept on their rights and allowed
almost thirty-six (36) years to lapse before attempting to assert their
right. Perforce, they must suffer the consequence of their inaction.

Note: The donation propter nuptias was effected as early as 21 April

1926. It was only in 1986 when the heirs of Segunda Maningding
demanded partition of the properties and conveyance of the produce.
Sixty (60) years have already elapsed. Even granting that Roque Bauzon
possessed the properties only upon the death of his father in 1948, more
than thirty (30) years have already passed. In either case, acquisitive
prescription has already set in in favor of Roque Bauzon.
Cabautan vs. Serrano, L-24112 May 26, 1960

Facts:
Pensader vs. Pensadar GR No. 21271 Feb. 07, 1924 this property, but did not obtain it, the defendants having continued in
possession and exclusive enjoyment thereof.
Facts:
These facts, under the circumstances shown by the evidence as a whole,
Canuto Pensader, who was living maritally with Maria Revelar, acquired are sufficient to establish the adverse character of the possession which
the land in question. Canuto had several nephews from his brothers the defendant Silverio P. Revelar and his predecessors in interest had
which are the herein plaintiffs and defendant Alexandra Pensader, and been exercising over the land in question, and, therefore, to justify the
died without leaving any forced heir. holding that the action brought by the plaintiffs has already prescribed.

Canuto donated one-half of the land in dispute to his paramour Maria

Revelar, and the other half to his niece Alejandra. Maria Revelar and
Alejandra Pensader have been cultivating it and later allotted the land to
the herein defendant Silverio Revelar, Alexandra’s son. The possession of
this Silverio Revelar, together with that of his parents and aunt Maria
Revelar, dates back to thirty years ago, and is continuous, public,
peaceful, and under claim of ownership.

Plaintiffs are arguing that the land in question is an undivided inheritance

between them and the defendants and filed for an action for partition
which they claim has not prescribed.

Issue: Whether or not the action filed by plaintiffs has prescribed.

Ruling:

YES. First of all, it was not shown that such possession was in common
with the plaintiffs. Second, the origin of said possession is adverse to
such community, namely, the donation, which although it is not
established by a sufficient documentary evidence, stands in this case as
a circumstance explaining the exclusive character of the possession of
Maria Revelar and Alejandra Pensader and that of their common
successor in interest Silverio P. Revelar. Besides, it appears that in the
year 1905, the plaintiffs made an extrajudicial demand for the partition of
DBP vs. Adil L-48889 May 11, 1988 reanimating the old promise and thus enabling the creditor to recover
upon his original contract.
Facts:

On February 10, 1940 spouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte

obtained an agricultural loan from the Agricultural and Industrial Bank
(AIB), now the Development of the Philippines (DBP), in the sum of
P2,000.00, Philippine Currency, as evidenced by a promissory note of said
date whereby they bound themselves jointly and severally to pay the
account in ten (10) equal yearly amortizations. As the obligation
remained outstanding and unpaid even after the lapse of the aforesaid
ten-year period, Confesor, who was by then a member of the Congress of
the Philippines, executed a second promissory note on April 11, 1961
expressly acknowledging said loan and promising to pay the same on or
before June 15, 1961. The trial court ordered the spouses to pay the loan
but this was reversed on appeal.

Said spouses not having paid the obligation on the specified date, the
DBP filed a complaint against the spouses for the payment of the loan.

Issue: Whether or not prescription operated to discharge a debt even if

there was acknowledgment of the debtor.

Ruling:

NO. This is not a mere case of acknowledgment of a debt that has

prescribed but a new promise to pay the debt. The consideration of the
new promissory note is the pre-existing obligation under the first
promissory note. The statutory limitation bars the remedy but does not
discharge the debt.

It is this new promise, either made in express terms or deduced from an

acknowledgement as a legal implication, which is to be regarded as
Aznar Bros vs. Heirs of Aniceto Augusto, et.al. GR No.140417 May 28, purported "owners" who signed the Deed of Sale as vendors were not
2004 even heirs of Aniceto Augusto and Petrona Calipan. They pointed out that
the 1945 Tax Declaration in the name of Petrona Calipan indicated that
Facts: the property was undivided as of the time Aniceto Augusto died in 1932.

The subject matter of this controversy is Lot No. 4397 owned by Aniceto The "owners" who sold the land to petitioner Aznar Realty could not have
Augusto who was married to Petrona Calipan. When Aniceto died, he left been the true owners of the land since there was no showing how they
behind five children: Geronimo, Zacarias, Teoderica, Arsenia and Irenea. acquired the land in the first place. Thus, the trial court should not have
Apparently, the property remained undivided evidenced by the Tax dismissed the complaint without looking into the validity of the sale of
Declaration issued to Petrona Calipan in 1945. land to petitioner Aznar Realty.

Tax Declaration in the name of Calipan was canceled pursuant to an In actions for reconveyance of property predicated on the fact that the
"Extrajudicial Partition” executed before Notary Public. In lieu thereof, tax conveyance complained of was null and void ab initio, a claim of
declaration certificates covering the lot were issued to 8 persons. These prescription of action would be unavailing. The action or defense for the
persons sold the property to petitioner Aznar Brothers Realty Company declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. Neither
(Aznar Realty) through a Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land. could laches be invoked in the case at bar.

Respondent Heirs filed a civil case against petitioner Aznar Realty. Laches is a doctrine in equity and our courts are basically courts of law
and not courts of equity. Equity, which has been aptly described as
Aznar Realty led an answer interposing the defense of lack of cause of "justice outside legality," should be applied only in the absence of, and
action and prescription. never against, statutory law.

Issue: Whether or Not the action was barred by prescription. The positive mandate of Art. 1410 of the New Civil Code conferring
imprescriptibility to actions for declaration of the inexistence of a
Ruling: contract should pre-empt and prevail over all abstract arguments based
only on equity. Respondents were evicted from their land in November
NO. Pet. is without merit, claim is imprescriptible. Respondents 1991 and they filed their complaint with the trial court on July 28, 1992.
anchored their action for reconveyance in the trial court on the nullity of Only eight months had passed from the time they were ejected to the
the Deed of Sale between petitioner Aznar and the supposed owners of time they asserted their rights over their property. They certainly could
the property. Respondents impugned the validity of the document not be deemed to have slept on their rights.
because the sellers were not the true owners of the land. Respondents
sought the declaration of nullity (inexistence) of the Deed of Sale
because of the absence of their consent as the true and lawful owners of
the land. They argued that the sale to petitioner Aznar was void since the
Gerona vs. De Guzman, GR No. L-19060, May 29, 1964
Ruling:
Facts:
NO. Petitioners' contention is untenable. Although, as a general rule, an
The petitioners herein, all surnamed Gerona, are the legitimate children of action for partition among co-heirs does not prescribe, this is true only as
Domingo Gerona and Placida de Guzman. Placida was a legitimate long as the defendants do not hold the property in question under an
daughter of Marcelo de Guzman and his first wife Teodora de la Cruz. adverse title.
After the death of Teodora, Marcelo married Camila Ramos. Their
children are herein respondents de Guzman heirs. Marcelo died When respondents executed the aforementioned deed of extra-judicial
sometime in 1945 and respondents executed a deed of extra-judicial settlement stating therein that they are the sole heirs of the late Marcelo
settlement of his estate. de Guzman, and secured new transfer certificates of title in their own
name, they thereby excluded the petitioners from the estate of the
They fraudulently stipulated therein that they were the only surviving heirs deceased, and, consequently, set up a title adverse to them. And this is
of Marcelo although knowing that petitioners were also his forced heirs. why petitioners have brought this action for the annulment of said deed
They were able to cause the transfer the certificates of 7 parcels of land upon the ground that the same is tainted with fraud.
each in their names.
It is already settled in this jurisdiction that an action for reconveyance of
The petitioners discovered the fraud only the year before the institution of real property based upon a constructive or implied trust, resulting from
the case. Petitioners seek to annul the extra-judicial settlement as well as fraud, may be barred by the statute of limitations.
have their shares in the said properties reconveyed to them.
It must, therefore, be held that plaintiffs learned, at least constructively, of
Defendants argue that Placida de Guzman was not entitled to share in the the allege fraud committed against them by defendants in 1948 when the
estate of Marcelo as she was an illegitimate child and that the action of deed of extra-judicial settlement of the estate of the deceased Marcelo
the Petitioners is barred by the statute of limitations. de Guzman was registered in the registry of deeds of Bulacan. Plaintiffs'
complaint in this case was not filed until 4 November 1958, or more than
The trial court ruled that Petitioners action had already prescribed. The 10 years thereafter.
CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court.

Petitioners assert that since they are co-heirs of Marcelo, the action for
partition is not subject to the statute of limitations; that if affected, the
period of 4 years did not begin to run until discovery of the fraud.

Issue: WON the action for partition of the latter's estate is not subject to
the statute of limitations of action.
Jocson vs. CA, et al. GR No. 55322 Feb. 16, 1989 Ruling:

Facts: NO. According to Article 1352 of the Civil Code, contracts without cause
produce no effect whatsoever. A contract of sale with a simulated price
Petitioner Moises Jocson and respondent Agustina Jocson-Vasquez are is void and an action for the declaration of its nullity does not prescribe.
the only surviving offsprings of the spouses Emilio Jocson and Alejandra
Poblete. While respondent Ernesto Vasquez is the husband of Agustina. Moises Jocson's action, therefore, being for the judicial declaration of
nullity of Exhibits 3 and 4 on the ground of simulated price, is
The present controversy concerns the validity of three (3) documents imprescriptible.
executed by Emilio Jocson during his lifetime. These documents
purportedly conveyed, by sale, to Agustina what apparently covers almost However, petitioner has not sufficiently proven that the questioned
all of his properties including his one-third (1/3) share in the estate of his documents are without consideration.
wife. Petitioner Moises Jocson assails these documents and prays that
they be declared null and void and the properties subject matter therein The contract cannot be declared void because of alleged inadequacy of
be partitioned between him and Agustina as the only heirs of their price. To begin with, there was no showing that the prices were grossly
deceased parents. inadequate. In fact, the total purchase price paid by Agustina
Jocson-Vasquez is above the total assessed value of the properties
Petitioner explained that there could be no real sale between a father and alleged by petitioner.
daughter who are living under the same roof, especially so when the
father has no need of money as the properties supposedly sold were all Further, gross inadequacy of price alone does not affect a contract of
income-producing. He further assailed the deeds of conveyance on the sale, except that it may indicate a defect in the consent, or that the
ground that they were without consideration since the amounts parties really intended a donation or some other act or contract (Article
appearing thereon as paid were in fact merely simulated. 1470, Civil Code) and there is nothing in the records at all to indicate any
defect in Emilio Jocson's consent.
The trial court ruled in favor of petitioner but the CA ruled differently and
held that since the documents are indisputably based on fraud, and
undue influence, it is now barred by prescription, pursuant to the settled
rule that an action for annulment of a contract based on fraud must be
filed within four (4) years, from the discovery of the fraud and petitioner
only filed the action after 5 yrs.

Issue: Whether or not the action of petitioner is barred by prescription.

Paluwagan ng Bayan vs. King GR No. 78252 April 12, 1989
The other defendants aver that they didn’t receive a copy of summons,
Facts: the CA and the judgment. That the counsel of record of MFC has no
authority to represent them in the case and in the Compromise
Petitioner Paluwagan ng Bayan Savings Bank sued MFC and private Agreement; that they have not ratified the same by a partial payment of
respondents for the recovery of money market placements through the compromise judgment; and that they were no longer connected with
certain promissory notes. MFC at the time they were sued.

Summons and copies of the complaints were served upon MFC and The CA set aside the judgment.
private respondents at their stated office address in Makati through its
Assistant Manager Mr. Nasomot, who acknowledged receipt thereof for Petitioner argues that the decision has long become final and executory.
and in behalf of MFC and the private respondents.
Issue: Whether or not the relief from judgment can no longer be obtained
A motion for extension of time for 20 days was granted the defendants. due to filing beyond the reglementary period.
Later, counsel for defendants filed a motion asking for a suspension of
the action for a period of sixty (60) days on the ground that there was an Ruling:
on-going negotiation for an amicable settlement of the case between the
parties. The motion was denied. NO. Since the Compromise Agreement was signed by Atty. Aragones in
behalf of the private respondents without their authority, the same is null
The counsel for plaintiff filed a motion to declare defendants in default and void in so far as they are concerned. By the same token, the
for failure to file an answer. This motion was granted. But a Compromise compromise judgment is also null and void as to private respondents.
Agreement was submitted for the approval of the court wherein The ruling of the lower court that the motion to set aside the judgment
defendants promise to pay the amount therein plus 20% interest p.a. The and the petition for relief from judgment were filed beyond the
trial court approved. reglementary period is untenable. An action to declare the nullity of a
void judgment does not prescribe.
Partial payments were made under the compromise judgment. Upon
failure of private respondent to make the other payments, petitioner filed
a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution of judgment. The trial
court granted the motion.

Later, counsel for defendants filed a pleading seeking a correction of the

compromise judgment on the ground that he erroneously filed the
Compromise Agreement in behalf of all the defendants when in fact he
was the counsel for MFC only.
Luzon Surety Co., vs. IAC GR No. 72645

Facts:

There is a judgment for money against defendant Gil Puyat

Pan-Fil Co. vs. Aujar, GR No. 81948 Nov. 9, 1989

Facts:
Abalos v. Heirs of Torio GR No. 175444 December 14, 2011

Facts: