Case Digest (G.R. No. L-20449)
Facts:
Esperanza Fabian, Benita Fabian and Damaso Papa y Fabian v. Silbina Fabian, Feliciano Landrito, Teodora Fabian and Francisco del Monte, G.R. No. L-20449, January 29, 1968, the Supreme Court En Banc, Castro, J., writing for the Court.The plaintiffs-appellants (the three Fabians) sued the defendants-appellees (the spouses Silbina Fabian and Felciano Landrito, and Teodora Fabian and Francisco del Monte) for reconveyance of Lot 164, Muntinlupa, alleging that the defendants had acquired title through fraud. The complaint (filed July 18, 1960) alleged that on October 5, 1928 defendants procured assignment of sale certificate No. 547 by an affidavit falsely representing that no heirs other than the declarants existed, and that on November 14, 1928 the Acting Director of Lands sold Lot 164 to them; the lot was thereafter registered in their names and they continued in possession.
The land’s history began January 1, 1909, when Pablo Fabian bought Lot 164 from the Government under the Friar Lands Act (Act 1120) and was issued sale certificate No. 547 after paying installments. Pablo died August 2, 1928, survived by four children (Esperanza, Benita I, Benita II — whose son is Damaso — and Silbina). On October 5, 1928, Silbina and her niece Teodora executed the affidavit claiming sole right to the lot; the sale certificate was assigned to them and, by deed dated November 14, 1928 (No. 17272), the Government (acting through the Director of Lands) sold the lot to them for P120.
Defendants took possession in 1929, cultivated the land, declared it for taxation in their names (tax declaration No. 3374, later replaced by Nos. 2418 and 2419), paid real estate taxes from 1929 onward, and in 1937 caused TCT No. 33203 to issue in their names. In 1945 they subdivided the lot into two equal parts; TCT 33203 was cancelled and TCT Nos. 38095 and 38096 were issued in the names of Silbina (married Landrito) and Teodora (married del Monte), respectively.
The defendants answered (Aug. 31, 1960), contending Pablo had not perfected payment and therefore lacked title at death; they asserted they purchased from the Government, held continuous possession adverse to others, and that plaintiffs’ claim was barred by laches and prescription. The Court of First Instance of Rizal, on a partial ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May laches or the statute of limitations bar an action to enforce a constructive trust in this case?
- Has title to the land vested in the appellees through acquisitive prescription?
- Was Pablo Fabian the owner of Lot 164 at the time of his death despite not having paid the pu...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)