Case Digest (G.R. No. 142974)
Facts:
Spouses Shem G. Alfarero and Aurelia Tagalog, Spouses Gines G. Alfarero and Noni Cruspero and Naomi G. Alfarero, petitioners, v. Spouses Petra and Sancho Sevilla, respondents, G.R. No. 142974, September 22, 2003, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.The Sevillas were the registered owners of a 14.038-hectare parcel covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-15615. On May 25, 1986 a portion of one hectare was conveyed by a Deed of Sale (notarized and entered as Doc. No. 148) to the Alfareros for P12,000.00; a Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-49928 was subsequently issued in the Alfareros’ names. The title bore the inscription that the parcel was “subject to the rights of repurchase by the Original Patentee or his heirs within a period of five (5) years from the date of the conveyance pursuant to Section 119 of Commonwealth Act 141, as amended” (the Public Land Act, Sec. 119).
Petra and Sancho Sevilla (plaintiffs in the trial court) later sought to exercise their statutory right of repurchase and, after an alleged rejection of the offer by the Alfareros, filed suit to repurchase on January 3, 1991. The Alfareros defended on prescription, asserting the sale occurred in December 1985 (their unnotarized deed purportedly showing “__th day of December 1985”), so the five‑year period had already elapsed by the filing date.
At pre-trial the parties moved for judgment on the pleadings; the trial court granted the motion and decided the case on submitted memoranda, ultimately ruling for the Sevillas and ordering reconveyance subject to repayment of P12,000.00 plus legal interest, and awarding attorney’s fees (Civil Case No. 91-01, RTC Panabo, Branch 4). The Alfareros appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 58277). On November 22, 1999 the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in toto, giving greater evidentiary weight to the notarized May 25, 1986 deed over the unnotarized document alleged to bear a December 1985 date. The CA rejected the Alfareros’ prescription defense because (a) their December 1985 date was not established by substantial evidence and (b) public/notarial documents are prima facie evidence of the facts therein. The CA later denied the Alfareros’ motion for reconsideration by resolution dated April 5, 2000.
The Alfareros sought review in the Supreme Court. They raised two principal questions: which date governs as the “date of the conveyance” under Sec. 119, Public Land A...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- For purposes of counting the five‑year repurchase period under Sec. 119 of the Public Land Act, when a deed shows both a signing date and a separate notarization date, which is the “date of the conveyance” — the signing date or the notarization date?
- May petitioners obtain a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence after the case is on appeal (i.e., filed outside ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)