Article 1140-1141

Art. 1140. Actions to recover movables shall prescribe eight years from the time the possession thereof is lost, unless the possessor has acquired the ownership by prescription for a less period, according to Articles 1132, and without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 559, 1505, and 1133. (1962a) 

Art. 1141. Real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years. This provision is without prejudice to what is established for the acquisition of ownership and other real rights by prescription. (1963) 

TITLE 

ANTONIO JAMES, et al. Petitioners
vs 
EUREM REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent. 

FACTS 

On September 17, 2003, the heirs of Gorgonio James filed a case for Declaration of Nullity of Title and Ownership of Real Property with Damages against Eurem Realty Development Corporation. The petitioners claims they are the registered owners of a property in Dipolog City containing an area of 448 square meters covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-18833. The respondent, on the other hand, is the registered owner of a 344-sq m portion of the same property owned by the petitioners, and covered by TCT No. T-10713. The respondent derived its title from Eufracio Lopez who executed in its favor a Deed of Assignment and Exchange on September 6, 1990. Lopez, in turn, derived his title from Primitivo James, who was Gorgonio’s brother. Lopez derived his title from Primitivo’s void title. Lopez acted in bad faith in assigning the property to the respondent as he knew fully well that he had no right or interest over said property. The respondent has knowledge of Lopez’s bad faith since it is a corporation was organized by Lopez. Respondent, in its answer, argued that the complaint is barred by prior judgment and that prescription has already set in. On February 24, 2004, the RTC sustained the respondent’s defenses and dismissed the complaint. The RTC noted that the title of the respondent’s predecessor-in-interest, Lopez, was issued on October 11, 1972 and has not been judicially declared null and void by any competent court up to the present, while the complaint for the declaration of nullity of the respondent’s title was filed only on September 26, 2003. Hence, more than 30 years have lapsed before the petitioners decided to question the legality of the respondent’s title over the property.Aggrieved, the petitioners appealed to the CA. In the Decision dated January 29, 2009, the CA dismissed the appeal. The petitioners sought reconsideration but their motion was denied. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. 

ISSUE 

Whether or not petitioners’ action is barred by prescription. 

RULING 

" While trial courts have authority and discretion to dismiss an action on the ground of prescription, it may only do so when the parties’ pleadings or other facts on record show it to be indeed time-barred.24 "If the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits, it cannot be determined in a motion to dismiss.“Under Article 1141 of the New Civil Code provides for a 30-year period for the filing of a real action involving an immovable property. While an action to declare the nullity of a void title does not prescribe. 

HELD 

TCT No. T-10713, which was issued on March .2 1992. Reckoning the prescriptive period from said date, the 30-year period clearly has not yet lapsed since the complaint was filed only on September 17, 2003. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 29, 2009 and Resolution dated November 17, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 00 119-MIN are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Consequently, Civil Case No. 5877 is REINSTATED. Let records of the case be REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 6, which is DIRECTED to proceed with the case with dispatch.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

OBLIGATION & CONTRACTS Art. 1156 - 1161

Obligation & Contracts By: Pineda Article 1156 Obligation - An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do.  The term obligation is derived from the Latin word " Obligatio " which means tying or binding. The words " juridical necessity " connote that in case of noncompliance, there will be legal sanctions. As per Brugi, Obligation is a juridical tie between two persons, by virtue of which one of them, the creditor, has the right to demand of the other, the debtor, a definite prestation. On the other hand, Manresa defined it as a legal relation established between one party and another whereby the latter is bound to the fulfillment of a prestation which the former may demand of him. Arias defined obligation is a juridical relation  whereby a person (called the creditor) may demand from another (called the debtor) the observance of determinate conduct, and, in case of breach, may obtain satisfaction from the assets of the latter.
Read more

Article 1278

Image
Compensation By: Gretzen M. Colona Article 1278. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. Compensation is the extinguishment to the concurrent amount of the debts of two persons who, in their own right, are debtors and creditors of each other. Ang compensasyon ay magaganap kung parehong may utang at nagpautang ang bawat isa sa isa't isa. Example: D owes C 5000 Php. C owes D 5000 Php. The parties do not need to pay each other as their obligations are extinguished by compensation. Kinds of Compensation 1. By its effect or extent. a. Total- when both obligations are of the same amount.  b. Partial- when the two obligations are of different amounts. 2. By its cause or origin: a. Legal- when it takes place by operation of law even without the knowledge of the parties. b. Voluntary- when it takes place by agreement of the parties. c. Judicial- when it takes place by order from a
Read more

PEREZ vs POMAR Case Digest

Perez vs Pomar 2 Phil. 682 (1903) March 12, 2016 FACTS Perez filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna a complaint asking the Court to determine the amount due him for services rendered as an interpreter for Pomar and for judgement to be rendered in his favor. Pomar, on his part, denied having sought the services of Perez, contending that, Perez being his friend, he only accepted the services for they were rendered in a spontaneous, voluntary and officious manner. ISSUE Whether or not consent has been given by the other party. HELD Yes. It does not appear that any written contract was entered into between the parties for the employment of the plaintiff as interpreter, or that any other innominate contract was entered into, but whether the plaintiff’s services were solicited or whether they were offered to the defendant for his assistance, inasmuch as these services were accepted and made use of by the latter, there was a tacit and mutual consent as to the ren
Read more