Case Digest (G.R. No. 56838)
Facts:
Genaro Navera and Emma Amador v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Arsenio Nares and Felix Nares, G.R. No. 56838, April 26, 1990, the Supreme Court First Division, Medialdea, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Genaro Navera and Emma Amador sought review of the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. No. 63926-R which affirmed the Court of First Instance of Albay (now Regional Trial Court) in Civil Case No. 4359, that declared respondents Arsenio Nares and Felix Nares owners of Lot 1460 in Camalig, Albay. The litigation arose from competing claims over Lot 1460, originally covered by Original Certificate of Title No. RO-154(NA) issued July 19, 1927 in the name of "Elena Navera, et al."
The title trace begins with a 1916 donation propter nuptias by Leocadio Navera to Fausto Mustar; Elena Navera (one of Leocadio’s children) later appeared on the 1927 title with the endorsement "et al." Elena died ca. 1924. In 1947 Eduarda Navera (Elena’s sister and co-titled person) executed a public deed selling all her share to Arsenio Nares (May 14, 1947). On June 26, 1948 Eduarda executed another sale of a portion of the same lot to Mariano Navera (petitioner Genaro's predecessor-in-interest). Neither sale was annotated in the original certificate.
Subsequent transfers: Arsenio sold a 5,726 sq. m. portion to Perpetua Dacillo (January 30, 1953), who later donated it to Francisco Dacillo; Mariano sold his purchased portion to Serapio Mustar (Aug. 13, 1955), who later (1959) sold to petitioner Genaro Navera; Francisco Dacillo sold his acquired parcel to Genaro on Sept. 3, 1971. Most transfers were not inscribed on the registered title.
On March 14, 1971 Arsenio and Felix filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Albay alleging they inherited Elena’s one-half interest in Lot 1460, that Arsenio had acquired other portions, and that petitioners’ chain of acquisition (through Mariano and Mustar) were sham or ineffective because Eduarda had already sold her share to Arsenio. Petitioners denied the claims, counterclaimed, and asserted possession (tacked to predecessors) dating back decades; they did not expressly plead acquisitive prescription as a defense. At pre-trial (Dec. 14, 1973) the parties stipulated to identity of the property, that 5,726 sq. m. had been sold to Perpetua Dacillo, and that the defendants were in possession.
The trial court (Feb. 28, 1978) declared plaintiffs (Arsenio and Felix) owners of Lot 1460 except the 5,726 sq. m. sold to Genaro. The Court of Appeals af...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Must acquisitive prescription be specially pleaded and proved before it can be availed of in this action?
- Where the same immovable lot is sold to different vendees by the same vendor and no transfer is inscribed in the Registry of Property, who obtains ownership—specifically, did respondents or petitioners have the superior right to Lot 1460?
- Does an alleged prior donation propter nuptias (unregistered and unannotated) bind the parties...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)