Title
Flora vs. Prado
Case
G.R. No. 156879
Decision Date
Jan 20, 2004
A dispute over the ownership and sale of a residential land in Quezon City, Philippines, is resolved by the Supreme Court, affirming the validity of the sale but modifying the extent of the property that was sold, and remanding the case to the trial court for the determination of the specific portion being conveyed to the buyer.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156879)

Facts:

  • The case concerns a residential land dispute in Quezon City, approximately 552.20 square meters in size.
  • Narcisa Prado inherited the land from her deceased first husband, Patricio Prado, Sr.
  • Following Patricio's death in 1959, Narcisa remarried Bonifacio Calpatura.
  • To support her minor children, Narcisa entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with her brother-in-law, Tomas Calpatura, Sr., on April 26, 1968, agreeing to sell the northern half of the property for P10,500.
  • A Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by Narcisa in favor of Tomas on July 28, 1973.
  • In 1976, Tomas' daughter built a duplex on the northern half, which was not contested by the respondents occupying the southern half.
  • On April 8, 1991, the respondents filed a complaint to declare the sale null, asserting it was a mortgage and that Narcisa lacked authority to sell.
  • The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, affirming the sale's validity.
  • The Court of Appeals modified the ruling, stating the sale was valid only for Narcisa's 1/7 undivided share.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court partly affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, ruling that Narcisa Prado is entitled to 9/14 of the residential land.
  • The Court upheld the validity of the sale of the undivided one-half portion by Narcisa to Tomas Calpatura, Sr...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court established that property acquired during marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless proven otherwise.
  • Narcisa's assertion of purchasing the property with her own funds was acknowledged, but she recognized in the sale documents that it was part of her conjugal share.
  • The court highlighted the parole evidence rule, which prevents altering written agreements with oral tes...continue reading

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.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.