Case Digest (G.R. No. 96865)
Facts:
- Faustino Maningo sold the disputed property to spouses Pedro and Teresa Villamor in 1948.
- Faustino later asked his father-in-law, Jose Deguilmo, to buy the land from the Villamors.
- On January 10, 1950, the Villamor spouses allegedly sold the land to Jose Deguilmo.
- Jose immediately took possession of the property, introduced improvements, and paid taxes on it.
- Faustino Maningo did not return to Cebu for more than twenty years.
- In 1973, Faustino tried to forcibly take possession of the property but failed.
- Faustino then executed a deed of sale in favor of Marcelino Kiamco.
- Marcelino filed a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession against Jose Deguilmo.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jose Deguilmo and his heirs.
- Jose Deguilmo acquired ownership of the disput...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The court held that Jose Deguilmo's adverse possession of the property for more than twenty years was sufficient for acquisitive prescription.
- The period for acquiring land by prescription under the old law was only ten years, regardless of good faith or bad faith.
- Since Jose Deguilmo had possessed the property since 1950, before t...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 96865)
Facts:
The case of Kiamco v. Court of Appeals involves a dispute over ownership of a property between Marcelino Kiamco and the heirs of Jose Deguilmo. In 1948, Faustino Maningo, the son-in-law of Jose Deguilmo, sold the property in question to Pedro and Teresa Villamor. However, in 1950, Faustino returned to Cebu and asked Jose Deguilmo to buy back the land from the Villamors. Jose Deguilmo immediately took possession of the property, introduced improvements, and paid taxes on it. Faustino Maningo abandoned his wife and children and did not return to Cebu for more than twenty years. In 1973, he tried to forcibly take possession of the property but failed. He then sold the property to Marcelino Kiamco, who attempted to take possession but was unsuccessful. Kiamco filed a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession against Jose Deguilmo.
Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether Jose Deguilmo had acquired ownership of the property through acquisitive prescription.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that Jo...