Case Digest (G.R. No. 48309)
Facts:
Eusebia Escobar v. Ramon Locsin, G.R. No. 48309, January 30, 1943, the Supreme Court, Bocobo, J., writing for the Court (Yulo, C.J., Moran, Ozaeta and Paras, JJ., concurring). The plaintiff-appellant Eusebia Escobar sued for reconveyance of Lot No. 692 of the Cuyapo cadastre, alleging ownership of the parcel and that she had acquired it in 1914 by donation propter nuptias from Pablo Ringor and had been in possession since that time.During the cadastral proceedings the illiterate plaintiff entrusted Domingo Sumangil to claim the lot for her, but Sumangil claimed it for himself and the cadastral decree was entered in his favor. By subsequent intestate proceedings and partition of the estate of Domingo Sumangil and Honorata Duque the parcel came to Juana Ringor, and the defendant-appellee Ramon Locsin was sued in his capacity as special administrator of Juana Ringor's intestate estate.
The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija found that Escobar had the equitable title and had been in possession since 1914, while the cadastral decree and the legal title were in Sumangil (and successors). Nonetheless, the trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Section 38 of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) provided a one-year period to review a cadastral decree and Escobar had not availed herself of that remedy.
Escobar appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding that the action sought enforcement of a trust and not revi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does Section 38 of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) bar plaintiff's action because more than one year has elapsed since the cadastral decree?
- Is the estate of Domingo Sumangil (through Juana Ringor and her administrator) equity-bound to convey Lot No. 692 to the cestui que tr...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)