Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 334 views

    Sunga V de Guzman

    Uploaded by

    Loisse Vitug
    Five heirs signed a private contract to sell their shares of a family fishpond for 700 pesos, but the contract was unregistered. Three non-signing heirs questioned the sale. The signing heirs claimed ownership through prescription. The court ruled against prescription, finding the non-signing heirs were unaware the signing heirs' possession extended to the whole fishpond, including the non-signers' shares. A fishpond is also not as physically possessed as land. The original owners remained on the tax declarations. Therefore, the signing heirs' possession was not clearly adverse or as owners, failing to meet prescription requirements.

    Copyright:

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

    Sunga V de Guzman

    Uploaded by

    Loisse Vitug
    334 views1 page
    Five heirs signed a private contract to sell their shares of a family fishpond for 700 pesos, but the contract was unregistered. Three non-signing heirs questioned the sale. The signing heirs claimed ownership through prescription. The court ruled against prescription, finding the non-signing heirs were unaware the signing heirs' possession extended to the whole fishpond, including the non-signers' shares. A fishpond is also not as physically possessed as land. The original owners remained on the tax declarations. Therefore, the signing heirs' possession was not clearly adverse or as owners, failing to meet prescription requirements.

    Original Description:

    asdf

    Original Title

    Sunga v de Guzman

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Five heirs signed a private contract to sell their shares of a family fishpond for 700 pesos, but the contract was unregistered. Three non-signing heirs questioned the sale. The signing heirs claimed ownership through prescription. The court ruled against prescription, finding the non-signing heirs were unaware the signing heirs' possession extended to the whole fishpond, including the non-signers' shares. A fishpond is also not as physically possessed as land. The original owners remained on the tax declarations. Therefore, the signing heirs' possession was not clearly adverse or as owners, failing to meet prescription requirements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    334 views1 page

    Sunga V de Guzman

    Uploaded by

    Loisse Vitug
    Five heirs signed a private contract to sell their shares of a family fishpond for 700 pesos, but the contract was unregistered. Three non-signing heirs questioned the sale. The signing heirs claimed ownership through prescription. The court ruled against prescription, finding the non-signing heirs were unaware the signing heirs' possession extended to the whole fishpond, including the non-signers' shares. A fishpond is also not as physically possessed as land. The original owners remained on the tax declarations. Therefore, the signing heirs' possession was not clearly adverse or as owners, failing to meet prescription requirements.

    Copyright:

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

    Vitug, Loisse Danielle D.

    Sunga v. De Guzman (1979)

    Appellees were not aware that appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond,
    including that which pertained to them as their share, thus said possession cannot be
    said to be adverse and open as to give rise to title by prescription.

    FACTS:

    A private contract of sale was signed by five (5) of the nine (9) legitimate heirs of the
    spouses Juan de Guzman and Lucia Montemayor for a consideration of P700.00. The
    property in question was a fishpond located in Pampanga.

    However, the referred deed of sale is not notarized nor registered in the Register of
    Deeds of Pampanga, hence the said property was still registered in the name of the
    father of the heirs up to October 5, 1962. Three out of the four who did not sign
    questioned the sale. Respondents claim they have acquired thru prescription.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not petitioners have acquired ownership thru acquisitive and extinctive
    prescription

    RULING:

    NO.

    Petitioners’ claim of prescription is made to rest on their alleged adverse possession of


    the whole fishpond, dating back from 1948. Respondents were not definitely aware that
    appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond, including that which
    pertained to them as their share.

    In that state of their knowledge as to the extent and nature of petitioners-appellant's


    possession, said possession cannot be said to be adverse and open as to give rise to title
    by prescription in favor of petitioners-appellants.

    A fishpond is not as physically or actually occupied or held in possession as a parcel of


    land, in that the signs of possession in the latter are more visible, and the extent of its
    exercise or enjoyment, more manifest and easily determined.

    The tax declaration over the land has remained up to the present in the name of the
    original owners, the deceased parents of respondents-appellees. The possession of
    petitioners-appellants, was, therefore, not completely adverse or open, nor was it truly
    in the concept of an owner, which are indispensable elements for prescription to
    become legally effective as a means of acquiring real property

    You might also like