Case Digest (G.R. No. 196733)
Facts:
Heirs of Roger Jarque v. Marcial Jarque, Lelia Jarque‑Lagsit, and Teresita Jarque‑Bailon, G.R. No. 196733, October 14, 2019, Supreme Court First Division, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are the heirs of Roger Jarque (Roger); the respondents are Marcial Jarque, Lelia Jarque‑Lagsit, and Teresita Jarque‑Bailon, children of Lupo Jarque. The controversy concerns ownership of an unregistered parcel, Lot No. 2560 in Boton, Casiguran, Sorsogon, alleged to have been originally owned by Roger’s father, Laureano Jarque, who died in 1946, and thereafter handled by his wife, Servanda Hagos.
Petitioners allege that Roger inherited Lot No. 2560 upon Laureano’s death, exercised ownership and possession (mortgaging the lot in 1960 and redeeming it), and that after intermittent acquiescence to other family members’ possession he and his sons repeatedly sought to retake the property. Respondents claim Servanda sold Lot No. 2560 to Benito Coranes on December 21, 1972, with a two‑year right to repurchase (pacto de retro), and that Servanda caused her granddaughter Dominga to redeem the lot on April 2, 1974 for P950.00; Dominga subsequently possessed, paid taxes, and later executed a 1991 Ratification of Ownership; Lelia later obtained a tax declaration in her name based on transfers and waivers executed by other respondents.
Roger (through his heirs) filed a complaint in the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Casiguran, for annulment of deeds, recovery of ownership and possession, accounting, and damages. On March 7, 2007 the MCTC ruled for petitioners: it declared petitioners the rightful owners and possessors; nullified Dominga’s 1991 Ratification and related waivers/registrations; found respondents’ possession non‑adverse and in bad faith; and awarded damages and costs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52, Sorsogon City, affirmed the MCTC decision on June 19, 2009 and denied reconsideration on September 18, 2009.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Rule 42 petition for review; on September 7, 2010 the CA reversed the trial courts, holding that at Laureano’s death the Old Civil Code governed, that Servanda (as surviving spouse) was entitled to a one‑half share or appropriate conjugal share and thus could dispose of her share, that her right of redemption passed to Dominga who duly redeemed and acquired ownership, and rejected the oral partition claimed by petitioners. The CA’s April 12, 2011 resolution is also a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Servanda have the authority to alienate Lot No. 2560 such that the sale with right to repurchase (pacto de retro) and a subsequent redemption vested ownership or transferable rights in Dominga?
- If Servanda’s right of repurchase was exercised by Dominga, did Dominga (or her successors, respondents) thereby acquire ownership of the property rather than merely a lien?
- Did respondents acquire ownership of Lot ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)