Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26107)
Facts:
The Heirs of Pedro Medina, represented by Margarita Medina v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Restituta Zurbito Vda. de Medina and Andres Navarro, Jr., G.R. No. L-26107, November 27, 1981, First Division, Teehankee, Acting C.J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners are the heirs of Pedro Medina, sued through Margarita Medina; respondents are Restituta Zurbito Vda. de Medina (widow of Sotero Medina) and her grandson Andres Navarro, Jr. Petitioners filed a complaint on March 6, 1957 in the Court of First Instance of Masbate seeking recovery of a parcel in Sitio Oac, Milagros, Masbate (321.1156 hectares) and delivery of the Spanish title (Titulo Real No. 349581), asserting they inherited the land from their father Pedro and that respondents, as guardians/administrators, had wrongfully taken possession, refused to account for income, and claimed the land as their own.
Respondents answered that petitioners were illegitimate (thus not entitled), that title to the land had devolved through succession and partition to their ancestors (Gregorio, Sotero and Narciso), that Narciso became sole owner and sold the land by deed of sale dated June 29, 1924 to Sotero and Restituta, and that the spouses possessed the land openly and adversely since 1924, thereby acquiring title by prescription (and that petitioners’ rights, if any, had been lost by extinctive prescription).
After trial the Court of First Instance rendered judgment for petitioners, declaring Margarita and her coheirs lawful owners, ordering respondents to deliver the titulo and possession and to account for the produce, with awards for attorneys’ fees and costs. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on January 22, 1966 reversed the trial court, holding petitioners failed to prove an express trust, that at most an implied trust might exist, and that petitioners’ action was barred both by acquisitive prescription (33 years’ adverse possession since the 1924 sale) and by the ten-year statute of limitations for actions to recover real property (Sec. 41, Act 190). Petitioners’ motions for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals were denied, and they filed the present petition for review to this Court.
On appeal the Court of Appeals’ finding that petitioners were legitimate children was accepted and left undisturbed, but the dispositive question before the Supreme Court was whether petition...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Were petitioners able to prove the creation of an express trust over the disputed land such that respondents’ possession would not be adverse and prescription would not apply?
- If no express trust existed, was petitioners’ action to recover the land barred by prescription (acquisitive prescription under Sec. 41, Act 190, or extinctive prescription from d...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)