Title
Delima vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 46296
Decision Date
Sep 24, 1991
Heirs of Lino Delima disputed ownership after Galileo Delima excluded them from title, claiming adverse possession; Supreme Court ruled action barred by prescription.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 46296)

Facts:

  • Acquisition and early title history
    • Lino Delima acquired Lot No. 7758 of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Lands Estate in Cebu by government installment sale.
    • Lino Delima died in 1921, leaving four heirs: Eulalio Delima, Juanita Delima, Galileo Delima, and Vicente Delima.
  • Issuance and alteration of certificates of title
    • On August 3, 1953, TCT No. 2744 was issued in the name of “The Legal Heirs of Lino Delima, deceased, represented by Galileo Delima.”
    • On September 22, 1953, Galileo executed an extrajudicial declaration of heirs; this led to the cancellation of TCT No. 2744 and issuance on February 4, 1954 of TCT No. 3009 solely in his name, excluding the other co-heirs.
    • Galileo declared the lot for tax purposes and paid realty taxes from 1954 to 1965.
  • Trial court proceedings
    • On February 29, 1968, petitioners—surviving heirs of Eulalio and Juanita—filed an action for reconveyance and/or partition and annulment of TCT No. 3009 with damages, naming Galileo and Vicente as defendants.
    • On January 16, 1970, the Court of First Instance of Cebu rendered judgment:
      • Declared the four groups of heirs as co-owners, each owning one-fourth share.
      • Declared TCT No. 3009 null and void, ordered issuance of new title in co-owners’ names.
      • Ordered accounting for taxes paid by Galileo at ₱170 per year with legal interest, partition of the lot within 60 days, turnover of possession, and costs.
  • Appellate and Supreme Court review
    • On May 19, 1977, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Eulalio, Juanita, and Vicente had waived their rights by allowing Galileo to pay the balance and taxes, thus Galileo perfected ownership by prescription.
    • Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing (a) the imprescriptibility of partition rights and (b) erroneous disregard of their evidence.

Issues:

  • Whether petitioners’ co-heirs right to demand partition is imprescriptible despite Galileo’s exclusive title claim.
  • Whether the petitioners’ action is barred by prescription from perfecting title by reconveyance or partition given Galileo’s adverse possession since issuance of TCT No. 3009.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.