Case Digest (A.C. No. 5738)
Facts:
In Heirs of Juanita Padilla, represented by Claudio Padilla, vs. Dominador Magdua (G.R. No. 176858, September 15, 2010), petitioners are the six legal heirs of the late Juanita Padilla, who died on March 23, 1989, owning an unregistered parcel of land in San Roque, Tanauan, Leyte. After her death, petitioners sought a judicial partition and communicated their intention to their eldest brother, Ricardo Bahia. In a letter dated June 5, 1998, Ricardo claimed the entire property in his favor, on the basis of a notarized Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property executed by Juanita on June 4, 1966. In October 2001, petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City, Branch 34, Civil Case No. 2001-10-161, an action for recovery of ownership, possession, partition, annulment of sale, and damages against Ricardo’s daughters, Josephine Bahia and Virginia Bahia-Abas, and respondent Dominador Magdua, who had purchased the land during Ricardo’s lifetime. Dominador moved toCase Digest (A.C. No. 5738)
Facts:
- Parties and Property Background
- Juanita Padilla owned an unregistered parcel of land in San Roque, Tanauan, Leyte; she died on March 23, 1989, leaving petitioners as her legal heirs.
- After her death, petitioners sought partition of the land and informed their eldest brother, Ricardo Bahia, of their plans.
- Contestation of Title and Judicial Proceedings
- In a letter dated June 5, 1998, Ricardo declared the land to be his sole property, relying on a notarized “Affidavit of Transfer” dated June 4, 1966 purportedly executed by Juanita.
- On October 26, 2001, petitioners filed with RTC Branch 34, Tacloban City, Civil Case No. 2001-10-161, an action for recovery of ownership and possession, partition, damages, and annulment of the sale by Ricardo’s daughters to respondent Dominador Magdua. They alleged misrepresentation by Ricardo and questioned the authenticity of the 1966 Affidavit.
- Magdua moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (assessed value of P590.00) and, subsequently, for prescription.
- RTC Branch 34, in an order dated February 20, 2006, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Upon motion for reconsideration, the court on September 8, 2006 took cognizance but dismissed on the ground of prescription under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. A further motion for reconsideration was denied on February 13, 2007.
Issues:
- Prescription
- Is the October 26, 2001 action barred by prescription, given the June 4, 1966 Affidavit of Transfer?
- Jurisdiction
- Did the RTC have jurisdiction over the action, considering the assessed value of the land and the principal relief sought (including annulment of the deed of sale)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)