Title
Benedicto vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 81344
Decision Date
Feb 7, 1990
A dispute over Lot 308's partition arose after Marciana Ramos mortgaged her share, which later prescribed. The Supreme Court upheld partition, ruling the mortgage and debt unenforceable due to prescription.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 81344)

Facts:

Ownership and Inheritance of Lot 308

  • The parcel of land in question is Lot 308 located in Lolomboy, Bocaue, Bulacan.
  • Originally owned by spouses Catalino Ramos and Agatona Avendano.
  • Upon their death, their children—Maria Ramos, Gregorio Ramos, and Marciana Ramos—inherited the property as co-owners pro-indiviso, evidenced by TCT No. T-24845.
  • Maria Ramos passed away, and her children (Irene, Cion, Dominador, Estela, Matilde, and Eslana) succeeded her one-third (1/3) pro-indiviso share.
  • Marciana Ramos died single and intestate on May 13, 1976.

Mortgage of Marciana’s Share

  • On January 16, 1966, Marciana mortgaged her one-third (1/3) share of Lot 308 to spouses Teodoro Roxas and Irene Benedicto for P3,000.00, as evidenced by a document titled "Kasulatan ng Sanglaan na Mayroong Panagot."
  • The mortgage was registered on August 19, 1976, over ten years after its execution and after Marciana’s death.
  • Teodoro Roxas also paid P1,500.00 for Marciana’s funeral expenses.

Gregorio Ramos’ Claim for Partition

  • Gregorio Ramos filed a complaint for partition on March 9, 1977, claiming one-half (1/2) of Marciana’s one-third (1/3) share, arguing that since she died single and without heirs, her share should devolve to him and the petitioners (Maria’s children).
  • Petitioners opposed the partition, citing the unpaid mortgage on Marciana’s share.

Validity and Prescription of the Mortgage

  • Gregorio Ramos contested the validity and genuineness of the mortgage document, arguing that even if genuine, it had prescribed and was no longer enforceable.
  • The trial court ruled in favor of Gregorio Ramos, ordering the partition of Lot 308 and requiring petitioners to pay attorney’s fees.

Court of Appeals’ Decision

  • The Court of Appeals modified the trial court’s decision, ruling that Marciana’s mortgage obligation devolved to Gregorio and the petitioners upon her death.
  • However, the court held that the mortgage had prescribed under Article 1142 of the Civil Code, as the action to foreclose it was filed more than ten years after its execution.
  • The appellate court ordered the partition of the property and required Gregorio to contribute P750.00 to Marciana’s funeral expenses.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Prescription of Mortgage and Debt: Under Article 1142 of the Civil Code, an action to foreclose a mortgage prescribes after ten years. The mortgage in question was executed in January 1966, and the action to foreclose it was filed in December 1977, beyond the ten-year prescriptive period. The underlying debt also prescribed under the same period.
  2. Partition of Property: The absence of a valid debt or obligation made the partition of the property proper. The heirs could not use the alleged mortgage to delay or prevent the partition.
  3. No Liability for Attorney’s Fees: The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that there was no legal basis to impose attorney’s fees on the petitioners.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.