Title
Canezo vs. Rojas
Case
G.R. No. 148788
Decision Date
Nov 23, 2007
Soledad claimed ownership of land purchased in 1939, entrusted to her father. After 49 years, she sued her stepmother for recovery, but the Supreme Court ruled her claim barred by prescription and laches, finding no trust relationship.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 148788)

Facts:

  1. Ownership Claim: Petitioner Soledad CaAezo claimed ownership of a 4,169-square-meter unregistered land in Higatangan, Naval, Biliran, which she allegedly purchased from Crisogono Limpiado in 1939. The transaction was not documented in writing.
  2. Possession and Entrustment: After purchasing the land, Soledad took possession of it until 1948 when she and her husband moved to Mindanao. She entrusted the land to her father, Crispulo Rojas, who cultivated it.
  3. Discovery of Adverse Possession: In 1980, Soledad discovered that her stepmother, respondent Concepcion Rojas, was in possession of the land and cultivating it. She also found that the tax declaration was in Crispulo Rojas’ name.
  4. Legal Action: Soledad filed a complaint for recovery of the property in 1997, alleging that she was the rightful owner. She attached a Joint Affidavit from two witnesses supporting her claim.
  5. Respondent’s Defense: Concepcion Rojas argued that Crispulo Rojas purchased the land in 1948, and the tax declaration was in his name. She also claimed that Soledad’s action was barred by prescription and laches, as she had not acted for 49 years.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Prescription and Laches: Under Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure), an action for recovery of real property prescribes after ten years. Soledad’s claim was barred by prescription because she failed to act within the statutory period. Additionally, her delay in asserting her rights for 49 years constituted laches.
  2. Trust Relationship: The burden of proving the existence of a trust lies with the party asserting it. Soledad failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of an express or implied trust. Her claim of profit-sharing did not establish a trust relationship, as it could also apply to other legal relationships like deposit.
  3. Procedural Issue: The grant of an extension of time to file a petition is within the discretion of the court. The Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in granting the respondent’s second motion for extension, as the delay was due to the difficulty in securing certified copies of the required documents.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court denied Soledad CaAezo’s petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision that her action was barred by prescription and laches. The Court also found no evidence of a trust relationship between Soledad and her father, Crispulo Rojas, and upheld the procedural ruling on the extension of time to file the petition.


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.