Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8018)
Facts:
In the case of Gil Atun, et al. vs. Eusebio Nunez, et al., decided on October 26, 1955, the plaintiffs-appellants Gil Atun, Camila Atun, and Dorotea Atun filed a complaint against defendants-appellees Eusebio Nunez and Diego Belga regarding a parcel of land located in Legaspi City. The land, registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 11696 in the name of Estefania Atun—who was the deceased aunt of the plaintiffs—was the subject matter of this case.
The complaint was lodged on August 7, 1950, with the plaintiffs asserting that they inherited the land from their deceased aunt, Estefania Atun, who died without direct descendants. The evidence presented showed that the plaintiffs had possessed the property from 1927 to 1930 before Gil Atun turned over the land for cultivation to Silvestra Nunez, Eusebio’s sister, who paid a portion of the harvest as rent. In 1940, Silvestra Nunez transferred the land to Eusebio Nunez, who thereafter denied the plaintiffs' ownership and
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8018)
Facts:
- Parties Involved:
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Gil Atun, Camila Atun, and Dorotea Atun.
- Defendants-Appellees: Eusebio Nunez and Diego Belga.
- Subject Matter:
- The case involves a parcel of registered land located in Legaspi City, Albay, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 11696 in the name of Estefania Atun, the deceased aunt of the plaintiffs.
- Background:
- Estefania Atun, the registered owner, died without issue, and the plaintiffs inherited the land as her legal heirs.
- From 1927 to 1930, the plaintiffs possessed the land. In 1930, plaintiff Gil Atun delivered the land to Silvestra Nunez (sister of defendant Eusebio Nunez) for cultivation, with Silvestra paying a portion of the harvest as rental.
- In 1940, Silvestra Nunez turned over the land to Eusebio Nunez, who subsequently refused to recognize the plaintiffs' ownership or deliver their share of the produce.
- Eusebio Nunez later sold the land to Diego Belga, who took possession with knowledge that the land belonged to the plaintiffs.
- Legal Proceedings:
- The plaintiffs filed a complaint for recovery of the land on August 7, 1950.
- After the plaintiffs presented their evidence, the defendants filed a demurrer to the evidence, arguing that the plaintiffs' action had prescribed under Section 40 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure).
- The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the 10-year prescriptive period for filing an action for recovery had elapsed (starting from 1940 when plaintiffs lost possession) and that the plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership.
- Appeal:
- The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which forwarded the case to the Supreme Court due to the legal question involved.
Issues:
- Primary Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint on the ground of prescription of action.
- Subsidiary Issue:
- Whether the plaintiffs sufficiently proved their ownership of the land to overcome the presumption of lawful ownership in favor of the defendants as possessors.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)