Case Digest (G.R. No. 44493)
Facts:
Mariano Angeles v. Elena Samia, G.R. No. 44493, November 03, 1938, the Supreme Court, Diaz, J., writing for the Court (Avancena, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concurring).The dispute concerns ownership of a 7 hectares, 13 ares and 81 centiares parcel in Bacolor, Pampanga (lot No. 3679, cadastral record No. 11, G.L.R.O. Cadastral Record No. 148), now within Original Certificate of Title No. 8995 issued December 15, 1921 in the names of Macaria Angeles, Petra Angeles, Felisberto Samia, and Elena Samia as undivided co-owners in stated proportions. Mariano Angeles (plaintiff-appellee) claimed exclusive ownership of the northern portion (identified as lot 3679-A on the plan) by inheritance from his father Antonino Angeles and by continuous possession since before 1896; Elena Samia (defendant-appellant) asserted ownership by allotment in a partition among the co-owners and, alternatively, that any claim by plaintiff had prescribed.
Chronology: the plaintiff unsuccessfully sought registration in about 1909 — his application was denied for plan defects — but he continued open, continuous possession until at least March 1933. Without plaintiff's knowledge, Original Certificate No. 8995 was issued on December 15, 1921 to the four co-owners. The co-owners later partitioned their common properties and allotted the disputed parcel to Elena Samia. About late February or early March 1933 Samia had the parcel relocated, and, although aware that neither she nor her coparticipants had previously occupied it, she entered the land and cut nipa leaves; plaintiff protested. Plaintiff requested that Samia execute a deed transferring the parcel to him on the ground that it had been included in the title by error; she refused, claiming indefeasibility of her title; plaintiff filed suit one or two days after her entry.
The trial court ruled for the plaintiff, ordered the defendant to execute a deed conveying the disputed northern portion (lot 3679-A) to him, and awarded costs against the defendant. The defendant appealed, assigning seven errors, principally: that plaintiff's action had prescribed; that plaintiff failed to allege or prove a cause of action; that plaintiff's claim conflicted with the To...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the plaintiff's action barred by prescription?
- Did the plaintiff state and prove a cause of action to annul or correct the effect of Original Certificate No. 8995 as to the parcel in dispute and to compel transfer?
- Does the Torrens System (registry decree and certificate) preclude relief where a certificate was issued through error and grants more land than rightfully due the registered parties?
- Was the lower court correct in treating the defendant as holding the disputed parcel in co...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)