Atp Midterms

8/18/2019 Atp Midterms

1/10

RAMOS v RAMOS

Facts: Spouses Martin Ramos andCandida were survived by three

legitimate children: Jose, Agustin and

Granada. Martin was also survived by natural children. A special proceeding

was instituted !or the settlement o! theestate o! said spouses. Ra!ael, brother o!

Martin was appointed administrator. A

pro"ect o! partition was submitted andthe con"ugal hereditary estate was

appraised at #$,%&$.%'. (t consisted o!)& parcels o! land, some head cattle and

advances to the legitimate children. (t

was agreed in the pro"ect o! partitionthat Jose and Agustin would pay the

cash ad"udications to their natural

siblings. *nly the sum o! # ', $%+.$ o! the #$- represented the estate o!

Martin. )' thereo! was the !ree portionout o! which the shares o! the natural

children were to be ta-en: each wouldget #),&/.'/. 0he pro"ect o! partition

as well as the intervention o! 0imoteo as

guardian o! the !ive minor heirs wasapproved by the court. 1ater on, Judge

2epomuceno as-ed the administrator to

submit a report showing that the shareshave been delivered to the heirs asre3uired which the siblings

ac-nowledged in a mani!estation. 0he

4imalayan cadastre 5& lots6 involved inthis case were registed in e3ual shares

in the names o! Jose7s widow, Gregoriaand her daughter Granada.

0he Plaintiff’s 5natural children6

contend that while they were growing

up, they had been well supported byJose and Agustin as they had been

receiving their shares !rom the produceo! the 4aciendas in varied amounts over

the years. 8ven a!ter the death o! Jose,

Gregoria had continued giving themmoney but had stopped in )%/) by

reason that lessee 1acson was not ableto pay the lease rental. 2o accounting

had ever been made to them by Jose

nor Gregoria. 9pon the survey o! theland, they did not intervene, as Jose and

Agustin promised that said lands shall

be registered in the names o! the heirs.0hey did not -now that the intestate

proceedings were instituted !or thedistribution o! the estate o! their !ather.

2either did they have any -nowledgethat a guardian was assigned torepresent their minor siblings,

considering that Modesto and Miguelwho were claimed to be such were no

longer minors at the time o! the

partition. 0hey never received theirshare in the estate o! their !ather.

#lainti!!s later on discovered that theproperty had a 0orrens title in the name

o! Gregoria and her daughter when

Modesto7s children had in3uired !rom theRegister o! eeds. #etitioners now bring

the present suit !or the reconveyance o!the sub"ect parcels o! land in their !avor.

#etitioners claim that in e!!ect, Gregoria

and daughter are holding their shares in

trust which was denied by de!endants.e!endants alledge res "udicata and

prescription.

LOWER COURT: ismissed thecomplaint on the basis o! res "udicata as

their shares were already settled in theintestate proceedings. 2o deed o! trust

was alledged and proven. #lainti!!7s

appealed saying that they weregrievously pre"udiced by the partition

and thus res "udicata should not bartheir action.

SC: 0he plainti!!s have not proven anye;press trusts neither have they

speci!ied the -ind o! implied trustcontemplated in their action. 8ither way,

such action may be barred by laches.

(n the cadastral proceedings, Jose andwi!e claimed the & lots o! the plainti!!s.

A!ter the death o! Jose, the said lots

were ad"udicated to his widow and


2/10

daughter. (n )%'+ Gregoria leased thesaid lots to


3/10

#angasinan6 measures /$) s3. m5more or less6. 8strada however noticed

that the 0orrens title under e @era

indicated that his property measures&/+ s3. m. 4e learned that the

discrepancy is the ''+ s3. m. beingoccupied by Juliana. 8strada sued to

evict Juliana.

Juliana averred that she and her !ather

have been in open, continuous,e;clusive and notorious possession and

in the concept o! an owner o! the landsince )%+) that they7ve been paying

ta;es that the title held by 8strada was

registered in )%$ but it only too- themto initiate an action in )% there!ore

laches has set in.

(SS98: Bhether or not the disputedportion should be ad"udged in !avor o!

e @era7s estate.

481: 2o. 0he inclusion o! Juliana7s land

in e @era7s title was erroneously done.(t was shown that Juliana, an unlettered

woman, agreed to have Mariano de @era

borrow her title !or the purposes o!Mariano obtaining a loan during de

@era7s li!etime that when de @eraregistered his portion o! land ad"oined to

that o! Juliana, the latter7s land waserroneously included.

0he error is highlighted by the !act that

de @era7s widow, in her inventory be!ore

she died, attested that de @era7s portiono! land is only /$) s3. m. more or less.

0he discrepancy appro;imates theportion o! land actually being occupied

by Juliana. >y that, the only portion that

can be ad"udged in !avor o! de @era7sestate is that which was being claimed

by the widow 5in her inventory6. Arecalculation must however be made to

speci!y the e;act measure o! landbelonging to each: ''+ s3 m should be

retained by Juliana 5portion which she

actually occupies6 and /?+? s3. m.should go to de @era7s estate.

(O)*ALES v& +AC

Facts: 0he land in dispute is registered

in the name o! austo Soy. (n )%$),austo sold +/' s3. m. to rancisco

1andingin. (n )%/$, pursuant to a eed

o! onation e;ecuted by austo, AntonioSoy 5son o! austo6 and Gregoria

Miranda 5wi!e6 sold +$? s3. m. toJuanito Gon=ales and Coronacion

Ganaden. (n January )%?, austo sold

another +$? s3. m. to Gon=ales and

Ganaden and two days later, a 0C0 wasissued in !avor o! Gon=ales, indicatinghis share as coDowner o! $&? s3. m. and

austo Soy, +$? s3. m. (n )%/, austo

sold another )$? s3. m. to the Gon=alesand Ganaden.

April )%/, Respondents Rosita 1ope=,

Gavino Cayabyab, Agueda and elipa9bando, #edro Soriano, 0eosidia 1ope=

and ederico >allesteros 5nieces and

nephews o! austo6 !iled the instantcomplaint !or partition against austo

Soy. *n the same day they !iled a noticeo! lis pendens and had it annotated on

the *C0. austo answered and contested

plainti!!s claims, asserting e;clusive titlein his name. austo countered that the

3uestioned land was never registered inthe names o! his parents 8ugenio and

Ambrosia, and that he had been the

registered owner o! the premises since)%'+.

*n the basis o! evidence adduced e;D

parte, the 0rial Court held thatrespondents and austo were coD owners

o! the lot and ordered the partitionthereo!. #arties were en"oined to

partition amongst themselves and were

to submit the same to the lower court


4/10

!or con!irmation. 9pon e;ecution, thesheri!! was unable to e!!ect

apportionment due to a 'rd party claim

o! Juanito and Coronacion Gon=ales,stating that they were registered owners

o! $&? s3. m. o! the disputed land. 0hesheri!! noted the various.

,!l%: (t is proper to issue the in"unction

sought by the petitioners to stop the

sale o! the property at public auction, toannul the levies made on the property,

to obtain the cancellation in the registryo! property o! the annotations made,

and to secure a

improvements petitioners had

introduced 5apartment, residential house

and piggery6. 0rial court allowedpetitioners to intervene as indispensableparties, vacating its previous "udgment

and granting a new trial.

Trial Cort: 0here is no proo! to show

that petitioners are coDowners o! theproperty in 3uestion because the land

has long been covered by an *C0 since)%'+ in the name o! their predecessor in

interest, austo Soy.

CA: Resolved in !avor o! respondents,

declaring that the sale to intervenorDpetitioners did not terminate the trust

relationship between the appellants andthe appellees. 0he sale in !avor o!

petitioners shall be en!orced against the

)E$ share o! respondents as heirs o!austo.

(ssue: Bas the disputed land held in

trust by austo Soy !or his sisters,8milia, Cornelia and Anastacia 5mothers

o! herein respondents6F

Rling: CA decision reversed, order !or

partition dismissed.

austo, being predecessorDinDinterest,had appeared to be the registered owner

o! the lot !or more than '? years and his

dominical rights can no longer bechallenged. Any insinuation as to the

e;istence o! an implied or constructive

trust should not be allowed.

8ven assuming there was an impliedtrust, respondents attempt at

reconveyance is barred by prescription,which in this case is )? years, the period

rec-oned !rom the issuance o! the

adverse title to the property whichoperates as a constructive notice.

0he assertion o! adverse title, which was

an e;plicit indication o! repudiation o!the trust !or the purpose o! the statute

o! limitations, too- place when the *C0

was issued in the name o! austo Soy in

)%'+, to the e;clusion o! his ' sisters.

8ven i! there were no repudiation, the

rule is that an action to en!orce animplied trust may be circumscribed not

only by prescription but also by laches

in which case, repudiation is notre3uired.

Respondents had literally slept on their

rights presuming they had any and can

no longer dispute the conclusive andincontrovertible character o! austo7s

title as they are deemed to haveac3uiesced therein.

SALAO S& SALAO

acts: A!ter the death o! @alentina

(gnacio, her estate was administered by

her daughter Ambrosia. (t waspartitioned e;tra"udically and the deed

was signed by her !our legal heirsnamely her ' children 5Ale"andra, Juan,

and Ambrosia6 and @alentin Salao, in

representation o! his deceased !ather,#atricio. 0he Calunuran !ishpond is the

property in contention in this case. #riorto the death o! @alentina (gnacio, her

children Juan and Ambrosia secured a

torrens title in their names a $ ha.!ishpond located at Sitio Calunuran,


5/10

1ubao, #ampanga. A decree was alsoissued in the names o! Juan and

Ambrosia !or the #inanganacan !ishpond

which ad"oins the Calunuran !ishpond. Ayear be!ore Ambrosia7s death, she

donated her oneDhal! share in the two!ishponds in 3uestion to her nephew,

Juan Salo Jr. 4e was already the ownero! the other hal! o! the !ishponds havinginherited it !rom his !ather, Juan Salao

Sr. A!ter Ambrosia died, the heirs o!@alentin Salao, >enita Salao and the

children o! @ictorina Salao, !iled a

complaint against Juan Salao Jr. !or thereconveyance to them o! the Canluran

!ishpond as @alentin Salao7s supposedone H third share in the )$/ ha. o!

!ishpond registered in the names o! Juan

Salao Sr. and Ambrosia Salao.

.!f!n%ant’s arg"!nt: @alentin Salaodid not have any interest in the two

!ishponds and that the sole ownersthereo! were his !ather and his aunt

Ambrosia, as shown in the 0orrens titles

and that he was the donee o! Ambrosia7soneDhal! share.

Plaintiff’s arg"!nt: 0heir action is to

en!orce a trust which de!endant JuanSalao Jr. allegedly violated. 0he

e;istence o! trust was not de!initelyalleged in the plainti!!7s complaint but in

their appellant7s brie!.

RTC’s Rling: 0here was no community

o! property among Juan, Ambrosia and@alentin when the Calunuran and the

#inanganacan lands were ac3uired that

co H ownership over the real propertieso! @alentina (gnacio e;isted among her

heirs a!ter her death in )%)$ that theco H ownership was administered by

Ambrosia and that it subsisted up to)%)& when her estate was partitioned

among her three children and her

grandson, @alentin Salao. (t rationali=edthat @alentin7s omission during his

li!etime to assail the 0orrens titles o!

Juan and Ambrosia signi!ied that he wasnot a coDowner o! the !ishponds. (t did

not give credence to the testimonies o!

plainti!!s7 witnesses because theirmemories could not be trusted and

because no strong evidence supportedthe declarations. Moreover, the parties

involved in the alleged trust werealready dead.

Judgment appealed to CA but theamounts involved e;ceeded two hundred

thousand pesos, the CA elevated thecase to the SC.

+ss!:

5)6 B2 plainti!!s7 massive oral evidence

su!!icient to prove an implied trust,resulting or constructive, regarding thetwo !ishponds.

,!l%: SC a!!irmed lower court7s

decision.

5)6 #lainti!!7s pleading and evidencecannot be relied upon to prove an

implied trust. 0he trial court7s !irm

conclusion that there was no community

o! property during the li!etime o!@alentina (gnacio or be!ore )%)$ issubstantiated by de!endant7s

documentary evidence. 0here was no

resulting trust in this case because therenever was any intention on the part o!

Juan, Ambrosia and @alentin to createany trust. 0here was no constructive

trust because the registration o! the +

!ishponds in the names o! Juan andAmbrosia was not vitiated by !raud or

mista-e. 0his is not a case where tosatis!y the demands o! "ustice it is

necessary to consider the Calunuran

!ishpond as being held in trust by theheirs o! Juan Salao Sr. !or the heirs o!

@alentin Salao. And even assuming thatthere was an implied trust, plainti!!s7

action is clearly barred by prescriptionwhen it !iled an action in )%/+ or a!ter


6/10

the lapse o! more than $? years !romthe date o! registration.

(ERO)A v .E (U*MA)

Facts:

#etitioner Gerona heirs are the

legitimate children o! omingo Geronaand #lacida de Gu=man. #lacida was alegitimate daughter o! Marcelo de

Gu=man and his !irst wi!e 0eodora de laCru=. A!ter the death o! 0eodora,

Marcelo married Camila Ramos. 0heir

children are herein respondents deGu=man heirs. Marcelo died some time

in Septermber )%$/ and respondentse;ecuted a deed o! e;traD"udicial

settlement o! his estate. 0hey!raudulently stipulated therein that theywere the only surviving heirs o! Marcelo

although -nowing that petitioners werealso his !orced heirs. 0hey were able to

cause the trans!er the certi!icates o!

parcels o! land each in their names. 0hepetitioners discovered the !raud only the

year be!ore the institution o! the case.#etitioners see- to annul the e;traD

"udicial settlement as well as have their

shares in the said properties reconveyedto them.

Cont!ntions: e!endants argue that

#lacida de Gu=man was not entitled toshare in the estate o! Marcelo as she

was an illegitimate child and that the

action o! the #etitioners is barred by thestatute o! limitations.

Rlings:

TR+AL COURT: 0he trial court

dismissed the case a!ter !inding that#lacida was a legitimate child o! Marcelo

and that the properties described herein

belonged to the con"ugal partnership o!Marcelo and Camila. (t also ruled that

#etitioners action had alreadyprescribed.

CA: a!!irmed ruling o! the trial court

Cont!ntions: #etitioners assert thatsince they are coDheirs o! Marcelo, the

action !or partition is not sub"ect to the

statue o! limitations that i! a!!ected, theperiod o! $ years did not begin to run

until discovery o! the !raud. 0hey claimthat the !raud done by respondents too-

place in )%/ or )%/ and that it had

not prescribed when the present actionwas commenced.

SC: 0he rule holds true only when the

de!endants do not hold the property in3uestion under an adverse title. 0he

statute o! limitations operates !rom the

time the adverse title is asserted by the

possessor o! the property.

0he de!endants e;cluded the petitioners

!rom the estate o! Marcelo when theye;ecuted the deed o! e;traD"udicial

settlement claiming that they are the

sole heirs thus setting up an adversetitle to the estate.

An action !or reconveyance o! real

property based upon a constructive or

implied trust, resulting !rom !raud maybe barred by the statute o! limitations

and the action may only be !iled within $years !rom the discovery o! the !raud. (n

the case at bar, the discovery was madeon June +/, )%$& when the deed was

!iled with the Register o! eeds and new

certi!icates o! title were issued in thenames o! the respondents e;clusively.

#lainti!!7s complaint was not !iled until

2ovember $, )%/& or more than )?years a!ter.

(gnacio Gerona as well as Maria

Concepcion attained the age o! ma"ortityin )%$& thus had $ years !rom date o!

discovery within which to !ile an action.

rancisco and el!in attained the age o!ma"ority in )%/+ and )%/$, thus had +


7/10

years a!ter removal o! Ilegal incapacitywithin which to commence their action.

Fa$ian v& Fa$ian, G.R. 2o. 1D+?$$%, +%January )%&, ++ SCRA +'), J. Castro.

Bhile under Section )/ o! the riar1ands Act, title to the land sold isreserved to the Government until the

purchaser ma-es !ull payment o! all there3uired instalments and the interest

thereon, this legal reservation re!ers to

the bare, na-ed title. 0he e3uitable andbene!icial title goes to the purchaser the

moment he pays the !irst instalment andis given a certi!icate o! title.

0he reservation o! the title in !avor o!

the Government is made merely to

protect the interest o! the Governmentso as to preclude or prevent the

purchaser !rom encumbering ordisposing o! the lot purchased be!ore the

payment in !ull o! the purchase price.

*utside o! this protection theGovernment retains no right as an

owner. 0hus, a!ter the issuance o! the

sales certi!icate and pending payment in!ull o! the purchase price, the

Government may not sell the lot toanother, encumber it, occupy the land to

use or cultivate, nor lease it or evenparticipate or share in its !ruits.

An action !or reconveyance o! real

property based upon a constructive or

implied trust, resulting !rom !raud, maybe barred by the statute o! limitations,

and the action there!or may be !iledwithin $ years !rom the discovery o! the

!raud, such discovery being deemed to

have ta-en place when new certi!icateso! title were issued e;clusively in the

names o! adverse claimants.

FACTS: #ablo abian bought !rom the#hilippine Government lot /01 o! the

riar 1ands 8state in Muntinlupa, Ri=al.>y virtue o! this purchase, he was issued

sale certi!icate /$. 4e died on August

+, )%+&, survived by !our children,namely, 8speran=a, >enita (, >enita ((,

and Silbina. *n *ctober /, )%+& Silbinaabian and 0eodora abian, niece o! the

deceased, e;ecuted an a!!idavit. *n thestrength o! this a!!idavit, sal!c!rtificat! /$ was assigned to them.

0he acting irector o! 1ands, on behal!o! the Government' sol% lot /01 to

Silbina abian 0eodora abian. 0he

vendees spouses !orthwith too- physicalpossession thereo!, cultivated it, and

appropriated the produce. (n that same

year, they declared the lot in theirnames !or ta;ation purposes. (n )%'the R o! Ri=al issued a 0C0 over lot

/01 in their names. 0hey later

subdivided the lot into + e3ual parts.

0he plainti!!s !iled the present action !or

reconveyance against the de!endantsspouses, averring that Silbina and

0eodora, through fra% perpetrated intheir a!!idavit a!oresaid. 0hat by virtueo! this a!!idavit, the said de!endants

succeeded in having the sale certi!icateassigned to them and therea!ter in

having lot )$ covered by said

certi!icate trans!erred in their namesand that by virtue also o! these

assignment and trans!er, the de!endantssucceeded !raudulently in having lot )$

registered in their names. 0hey !urther

allege that the land has not beentrans!erred to an innocent purchaser !or

value. A reconveyance thereo! is prayed!or.

(n their answer, the de!endants spousesclaim that #ablo abian was not the

owner o! lot )$ at the time o! his death

on August +, )%+& because he had not


8/10

paid in !ull the amorti=ations on the lotthat they are the absolute owners

thereo!, having purchased it !rom the

Government, and !rom that year havinge;ercised all the attributes o! ownership

thereo! up to the present and that thepresent action !or reconveyance has

already prescribed. 0he dismissal o! thecomplaint is prayed !or.

0he lower court rendered "udgment

declaring that the de!endants spouseshad ac3uired a valid and complete title

to the property by ac3uisitive

prescription, and accordingly dismissedthe complaint. 0he latter7s motion !or

reconsideration was therea!ter denied.

4ence, the present recourse.

+SSUE:

5)6 Bas #ablo abian the owner o! lot

)$ at the time o! his death, in the !ace

o! the !act, admitted by the de!endantsDappellees, that he had not then paid the

entire purchase price thereo!F

5+6 May laches constitute a bar to an

action to en!orce a constructive trustF

5'6 4as title to the land vested in theappellees through the mode o!

ac3uisitive prescriptionF

,EL.: 0he "udgment a quo, dismissing

the complaint, is a!!irmed

).


9/10

installments to the Government, and in!act been issued a sale certi!icatein his

name, are conceded. 4e was there!ore

the owner o! lot )$ at the time o! hisdeath. 4e le!t !our daughters, namely,

8speran=a, >enita (, >enita (( andSilbina to whom all his rights and

interest over lot )$ passed upon hisdemise.

(n case a holder o! a certi!icate dies

be!ore the giving o! the deed and doesnot leave a widow, then the interest o!

the holder o! the certi!icate shall

descend and deed shall issue to theperson who under the laws o! the

#hilippine (slands would have ta-en had

the title been per!ected be!ore the deatho! the holder o! the certi!icate, uponproo! o! the holders thus entitled o!

compliance with all the re3uirements o!

the certi!icate.

+. 0he assignment and sale o! the lot to

the de!endants Silbina and 0eodora werethere!ore null and void. 0o the e;tent o!

the participation o! the appellants,application must be made o! theprinciple that i! property is ac3uired

through fraud , the person obtaining it isconsidered a trustee of an implied trust

!or the bene!it o! the person !rom whom

the property comes.

1aches may bar an action brought to

en!orce a constructive trust such as the

one in the case at bar. (lluminating arethe !ollowing e;cerpts !rom a decisionpenned by Mr. Justice Reyes:

>ut in constructive trusts, . . . the rule is

that laches constitutes a bar to actionsto en!orce the trust, and repudiation is

not re3uired, unless there is aconcealment o! the !acts giving rise to

the trust K

0he assignment o! sale certi!icate was

e!!ected in *ctober )%+& and the actual

trans!er o! lot )$ was made on the!ollowing 2ovember )$. (t was only on

July &, )%?, '+ big years later, that theappellants !or the !irst time came

!orward with their claim to the land. 0he

record does not reveal, and it is notseriously asserted, that the appellees

conc!al!% the !acts giving rise to thetrust. 9pon the contrary, paragraph )'

o! the stipulation o! !acts o! the parties

states with stri-ing clarity Ithatde!endants herein have been in

possession o! the land in 3uestion since

1928 up to the present publicly andcontinuously under claim of ownership;they have cultivated it, harvested and

appropriated the fruits for themselves.

'. it is already settled in this jurisdiction that an action for

reconveyance of real property basedupon a constructive or implied trusts,

resulting from fraud, may be barred bythe statute of limitations. the discoveryin that case being deemed to have ta-en

place when new certi!icates o! title wereissued e;clusively in the names o! the

respondents therein.

LAlthough, as a general rule, an action!or partition among coDheirs does not

prescribe, this is true only as long as the

de!endants do not hold the property in3uestion under an adverse title. hestatute of limitations operates, as in

other cases, from the moment such

adverse title is asserted by the possessor of the property

(nasmuch as petitioners see- to annulthe a!orementioned deed o! Ie;traD


10/10

"udicial settlement upon the ground o!!raud in the e;ecution thereo!, the

action therefor may be filed within four

5$6 years from the discovery of thefraud. 9pon the undisputed !acts in the

case at bar, not only had laches set inwhen the appellants instituted their

action !or, reconveyance in )%?, but aswell their right to en!orce theconstructive trust had already

prescribed.

(t logically !ollows !rom the above

dis3uisition that ac3uisitive prescription

has li-ewise operated to vest absolutetitle in the appellees, pursuant to the

provisions o! section $) o! Act )%? that:

en years actual adverse possession by

any person claiming to be the owner !orthat time o! any land or interest in land,

uninterruptedly continued !or ten years

by occupancy, descent, grants, orotherwise, in whatever way such

occupancy may have commenced orcontinued , shall vest in every actual

occupant or possessor o! such land a !ulland complete title.

9pon the !oregoing dis3uisition, we hold

not only that the appellants7 action toen!orce the constructive trust created in

their !avor has prescribed, but as well

that a valid, !ull and complete title hasvested in the appellees by ac3uisitive

prescription.

)OTES:

Article )$/ o! the new Civil Code, whilenot retroactive in character, merely

e;presses a rule already recogni=ed by

our courts prior to the Code7spromulgation 5see Gayondato vs. (nsular

0reasurer, $% #hil. +$$6. Appellants are,however, in error in believing that li-e

e;press trust, such constructive trusts

may not be barred by lapse o! time. 0heAmerican law on trusts has always

maintained a %istinction $!t4!!n!5#r!ss trusts created by the intention

o! the parties, and the i"#li!% orconstrctiv! trsts that aree;clusively created by law, the latter not

being trusts in their technical sense. 0hee;press trusts disable the trustee !rom

ac3uiring !or his own bene!it the

property committed to his managementor custody, at least while he does not

openly repudiate the trust, and ma-essuch repudiation -nown to the

bene!iciary or cestui que trust . or this

reason, the old Code o! Civil #rocedure5Act )%?6 declared that the rules on

adverse possession does not apply to Icontinuing and subsisting 5i.e.,

unrepudiated6 trusts.

Documents

Atp Midterms