Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29603)
Facts:
Anacleto Balicudiong, et al. v. Antonio Balicudiong (Heirs), G.R. No. L-29603, June 07, 1971, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court. Plaintiffs-appellees (children and descendants of Mateo Balicudiong and his deceased wife Anastacia Alcoba) sued the defendants-appellants (the heirs who substituted for Antonio Balicudiong, Mateo’s assignee) in a complaint for annulment and partition concerning Lot No. 5547 of the Imus Friar Lands Estate. The complaint sought to set aside a deed of assignment executed by Mateo to his son Antonio and to partition the property among the heirs of the parties.Chronologically, Mateo purchased the lot from the Government through the Friar Lands Agency on installment terms with Sale Certificate No. 6612 dated July 1, 1920; Anastacia died September 23, 1923. Mateo continued paying the installments; full payment was shown completed June 1, 1931 (Installment Record Certificate No. 6612). On June 4, 1931 Mateo executed a deed of assignment of the sale certificate in favor of his son Antonio for P300.00, acknowledged before a notary and approved by the Director of Lands. A Director’s conveyance was registered and a certificate of title issued to Antonio on September 28, 1931.
The Court of First Instance of Cavite (trial court), in Civil Case No. TM-11, found the lot to be conjugal property (acquired during coverture) but held that the assignment by Mateo to Antonio was valid as to one-half (Mateo’s conjugal half); it declared void or annulled the assignment only insofar as it affected the half that pertained to the deceased wife and ordered partition among the heirs. The defendants-appellants (Antonio’s heirs) appealed directly to the Supreme Court on questions of law. The records were erroneously transmitted to the Court of Appeals but then forwarded to the Sup...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the plaintiffs' action to annul the assignment barred by prescription?
- Was Lot No. 5547 the conjugal property of Mateo and Anastacia or the exclusive property of Mateo?
- Did the assignment by Mateo to Antonio convey the entirety of the lot, or was it void as to the share of the deceased wife under the applicable statutes (Act No. 1120 as amended and Act 3176)?
- Could Antonio (and, after his death, his heirs) acquire by prescription...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)