Case Digest (G.R. No. 161434)
Facts:
Alberto Pascua, Crispina Pascua, Sotera Pascua, and Eduardo Molina v. Hon. Alfredo C. Florendo, CFI of Cagayan, Clemente Castro, and Juliana O. Castro, G.R. No. L-39047, April 30, 1985, First Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (the Pascuas and Molina) filed a complaint for reconveyance with damages against respondents Clemente Castro and Juliana O. Castro in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cagayan, alleging that their deceased brother, Martin Pascua, had fraudulently sold an inherited parcel of land to the Castros and that petitioners were deprived of the fruits of the land for over 20 years. The deed of sale dated May 8, 1951, and documents purporting to show title and tax declaration in the name of Juliana Castro were offered as exhibits by the parties below.
Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting failure to state a cause of action and that the action was barred by prescription. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that the asserted defenses did not appear on the face of the complaint. After respondents failed to answer within the reglementary period, the trial court declared them in default and received petitioners’ evidence ex parte.
After the ex parte presentation, the trial court found (inter alia) that the deed of sale was executed in 1951, that petitioners and respondents had been neighbors for decades, that respondents had been in possession for over 20 years, and that the property was titled in the name of Juliana Castro (with tax declaration and original certificate of title documents admitted). The CFI concluded that petitioners had either discovered the sale long ago or were chargeable with constructive notice (given the issuance of an original certificate of title and the long possession) and that any action based on fraud was governed by a four-year prescriptive period (Article 1391, New Civil Code; Section 43(c), Act No. 190). The trial court dismissed the complaint as prescribed.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, contending (1) that the trial court was estopped from ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the trial court precluded (estopped) from dismissing the action on the ground of prescription after it had earlier denied a motion to dismiss raising prescription?
- Did the trial court err in refusing to grant the relief prayed for after declaring respo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)