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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 176 views

    Cabrera V Tiano

    Uploaded by

    BGod
    This case involved a dispute over ownership of a seven-hectare property that was sold in 1947. [1] One of the original owner's children was a minor at the time of sale and another did not sign the deed of sale. [2] In 1957, they filed a case claiming their right to a portion of the land. [3] The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the 10-year prescriptive period for filing a case had not elapsed and that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence of acquisitive prescription of the property.

    Copyright:

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

    Cabrera V Tiano

    Uploaded by

    BGod
    176 views2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over ownership of a seven-hectare property that was sold in 1947. [1] One of the original owner's children was a minor at the time of sale and another did not sign the deed of sale. [2] In 1957, they filed a case claiming their right to a portion of the land. [3] The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the 10-year prescriptive period for filing a case had not elapsed and that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence of acquisitive prescription of the property.

    Original Title

    cabrera v tiano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over ownership of a seven-hectare property that was sold in 1947. [1] One of the original owner's children was a minor at the time of sale and another did not sign the deed of sale. [2] In 1957, they filed a case claiming their right to a portion of the land. [3] The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the 10-year prescriptive period for filing a case had not elapsed and that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence of acquisitive prescription of the property.

    Copyright:

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

    Cabrera V Tiano

    Uploaded by

    BGod
    This case involved a dispute over ownership of a seven-hectare property that was sold in 1947. [1] One of the original owner's children was a minor at the time of sale and another did not sign the deed of sale. [2] In 1957, they filed a case claiming their right to a portion of the land. [3] The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the 10-year prescriptive period for filing a case had not elapsed and that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence of acquisitive prescription of the property.

    Copyright:

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

    33.

    CABRERA v TIANO
    G.R. No. L-17299 | July 31, 1963
    Raida Grefiel

    FACTS:
    Spouses Ciriaco and Gregoria Potestas owned a seven-hectare agricultural land in Misamis Occidental. They had five children
    namely Isabelo, Lourdes, and Clemente, Josefine, and Cresencia. The wife Gregoria and her child Clemente died. The husband
    Ciriaco, with three other children (Isabelo, Lourdes, and Cresencia) sold the land to Mariano Tiano for P3,500 on July 2, 1947.
    At the time of the sale, Cresencia was a minor and Josefina did not sign the deed of sale.

    On June 20, 1957, Josefina and Cresencia filed an action for "Partition and Recovery of Real Estate, with Damages" against
    Tiano, stating that they were entitled to a portion of the land since one was a minor and the other did not sign the deed of the sale.
    Judicial summons was issued on June 21, 1957 but Tiano received the summons on July 2, 1957.

    As defense, Tiano said that the plaintiffs knew of the sale and that he was the absolute owner of the land by acquisitive
    prescription of ten years from the date of purchase. 

    PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
    Trial Court. In favor of plaintiff. 

    ISSUE/S:
    WON the action has prescribed (NO)

    RULING:

    Art. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extra-judicial
    demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt of the debtor.

    Since the sale of the property took place on July 2, 1947, the ten (10) year period within which to file the action had not yet
    elapsed on June 20, 1957 when the complaint was presented.

    Although the sale was perfected before the effectivity of the new Civil Code and the law then governing it prescription was Act.
    No 190, such law had no specific provision on the interruption of prescription. The established rule is that the commencement of
    the suit prior to the expiration of the applicable limitation period interrupts the running of the statute, as to all parties to the
    action. 

    The fact that the summons was received by Tiano only on July 2, 1957 (coincidentally the end of the 10-year period) is not
    important since civil actions are deemed commenced from the date of the filing and docketing of the complaint with the Clerk of
    Court, without taking into account the issuance and service of summons. The contention that the period was not interrupted until
    after the defendant received the summons is without legal basis.

    The Court also rejected Tiano’s defense that he had acquired ownership of the property under Art. 1123. 

    Article 1123. Civil interruption is produced by judicial summons to the possessor.

    He cannot avail himself of acquisitive prescription, because there was no finding by the trial court that his possession from the
    time of the sale was with just title, in good faith, in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, adverse and uninterrupted (Arts.
    1117 and 1118). Good faith is a question of fact which must be proved (Art. 1127 N.C.C.). For the purposes of acquisitive
    prescription, just title must also be proved, it is never presumed (Art. 1131 N.C.C.). 

    DISPOSITION:
    Lower court decision affirmed. 

    You might also like