Facts:
Victoria Julio v. Emiliano Dalandan and Maria Dalandan, G.R. No. L-19012. October 30, 1967, the Supreme Court En Banc, Sanchez, J., writing for the Court.
Plaintiff-appellant
Victoria Julio sued defendants-appellees
Emiliano Dalandan and
Maria Dalandan in Civil Case No. 324-R in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to recover certain parcels of land. Her complaint was founded on Annex "A" to the complaint: a sworn statement (dated September 8, 1950) executed by
Clemente Dalandan (now deceased) and joined by Victoria, which acknowledged that Clemente had assumed an obligation that resulted in the foreclosure of a riceland belonging to Victoriana Dalandan (Victoria’s mother) and promised to replace that forfeited land with another farm of about four hectares. The writing also contains provisos that Clemente’s children (Emiliano and Maria) "may not be forced to give up the harvest" and that Victoria "may not immediately demand the substitute" land.
In her complaint Victoria alleged that the land actually intended by the writing consisted of six small parcels totaling barely two hectares (the only land owned by Clemente at the time) except for fifty saltbeds previously conveyed to Victoriana by pacto de retro. After Clemente’s death Victoria demanded delivery of the parcels from defendants, who responded that under the agreement neither the land nor its fruits could be immediately taken and that Victoria had acquiesced; allegedly defendants later refused to fix any time for delivery. Victoria prayed for declaration of ownership, fixation of a delivery period, conveyance and delivery at the expiration of that time, attorneys’ fees and costs.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on three grounds: (1) prescription of the action; (2) pendency of another suit between the same parties for the same cause (a land registration proceeding, Land Registration Case N-706); and (3) release and/or abandonment. By order dated April 29, 1961 the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissed the complaint, ruling that whether viewe...
(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint as barred by prescription.
- Whether the writing (Annex "A") created an express trust or fiduciary relation enforceable against defendants so that prescription (or laches) may not be invoked.
- Whether the pendency of the land registration case or the alleged release/abandonm...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: