Case Digest (G.R. No. 96865)
Facts:
Marcelino Kiamco v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Juana Deguilmo‑Grape, Quirina Deguilmo‑Maningo, Antonia Deguilmo, and Juan Deguilmo, G.R. No. 96865, July 03, 1992, the Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns title to a parcel of land originally owned by Faustino Maningo, who on September 21, 1948 sold the property by pacto de retro to spouses Pedro and Teresa Villamor (Exh. 1). Faustino and his wife Quirina left for Mindanao; in January 1950, Faustino returned and, lacking funds, asked his father‑in‑law Jose Deguilmo to buy the land. On January 10, 1950 the Villamors allegedly sold the land to Jose Deguilmo in a private document of sale (Exh. 2). Immediately thereafter Deguilmo took possession, made improvements, and paid taxes on the property.
Faustino thereafter abandoned his family for many years and did not return to Cebu for over twenty years. In 1973 Faustino returned and allegedly tried to take possession; he then executed a deed of sale on October 2, 1973 in favor of Marcelino Kiamco (petitioner). Kiamco, who allegedly knew that Deguilmo had been in possession of the land for more than twenty years, later filed a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession with damages against Deguilmo before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu.
The RTC found that Faustino was still the owner on October 2, 1973, declared the January 10, 1950 deed from the Villamors to Deguilmo null and void, and held that Deguilmo had not acquired the land by prescription. On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the RTC decision, ruling that Deguilmo had acquired ownership by acquisitive prescription under the Code of Civil Procedure because his possession began in January 1950 and thus was governed by the law in force before the New Civil Code; ten (10) years of peaceful, continuous, adverse and uncontested possession sufficed.
Petitioner sought reconsideration in the Court of Appeals, which was denied. He then elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition. Petitioner argued (inter alia) that the land claimed by the respondents was not identical to that claimed by him (different tax declarations), that Deguilmo acted in bad faith and could not acqu...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in applying the pre‑New Civil Code prescriptive period (Code of Civil Procedure, Act 190) instead of the New Civil Code for acquisitive prescription?
- Did Jose Deguilmo acquire ownership of the disputed land by acquisitive prescription despite allegations of bad faith and defect...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)