Title
Ignacia Gerona vs. De Guzman
Case
G.R. No. L-19060
Decision Date
May 29, 1964
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the partition complaint, ruling it was barred by the statute of limitations due to the respondents' valid execution of a deed of extrajudicial settlement and issuance of new titles.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-19060)

Facts:

  • Petitioners: Ignacio Gerona, Maria Concepcion Gerona, Francisco Gerona, and Delfin Gerona, legitimate children of Domingo Gerona and Placida de Guzman.
  • Placida de Guzman passed away on August 9, 1941; she was the legitimate daughter of Marcelo de Guzman and Teodora de la Cruz.
  • Marcelo remarried Camila Ramos after Teodora's death and had several children, the respondents: Carmen, Jose, Clemente, Francisco, Rustica, Pacita, and Victoria De Guzman.
  • Marcelo de Guzman died on September 11, 1945.
  • On May 6, 1948, respondents executed a deed of "extrajudicial settlement," falsely claiming to be the only heirs and excluding the petitioners.
  • This act led to the cancellation of original titles for seven parcels of land and issuance of new titles solely in the respondents' names.
  • Petitioners discovered the fraud in 1957 and demanded their share, which respondents refused.
  • Petitioners filed a complaint on September 4, 1958, seeking to nullify the extrajudicial settlement, reconvey their share, and claim damages.
  • Respondents argued that the petitioners' mother was a spurious child and that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.
  • The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, affirming the legitimacy of the petitioners' mother but stating the action had prescribed, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, ruling that the action for partition was barred by the statute of limitations.
  • The Court held that the petitioners' claim to annul the deed of extrajudicial settlement was also tim...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Court explained that while an action for partition among co-heirs typically does not prescribe, this principle applies only when defendants do not hold property under an adverse title.
  • The respondents' execution of the extrajudicial settlement and issuance of new titles constituted an assertion of an adverse title against the petitioners.
  • The statute of limitations begins to run when an adve...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.