Title
Canezo vs. Rojas
Case
G.R. No. 148788
Decision Date
Nov 23, 2007
Soledad claimed ownership of land purchased in 1939, entrusted to her father. After 49 years, she sued her stepmother for recovery, but the Supreme Court ruled her claim barred by prescription and laches, finding no trust relationship.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 148788)

Procedural History

On January 29, 1997, the MTC of Naval ruled for petitioner. The RTC reversed (October 12, 1998), then on reconsideration (December 14, 1998) declared petitioner owner and awarded damages. The CA dismissed on prescription and laches (September 7, 2000) and denied reconsideration (May 9, 2001). Petition for review to the Supreme Court followed.

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution; Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure) Sections 40–41 on ten-year prescriptive period for real-property recovery and acquisitive prescription; Civil Code Articles 1116, 1441, 1443 on trusts; Statute of Frauds; jurisprudence on prescription, trust, estoppel, laches, and indispensable parties.

Issues for Review

  1. Whether the CA erred in granting respondent’s second extension to file her petition for review.
  2. Whether petitioner’s recovery action is barred by prescription or laches, notwithstanding asserted express or resulting trust.
  3. Ancillary issues: estoppel, indispensable parties.

Procedural Issue: Extension of Time

The Court held the CA’s grant of extension was a proper exercise of discretion. The distance-related delay in obtaining certified RTC orders amounted to a compelling reason. Absent capriciousness, discretion is not disturbed.

Existence of Trust Relationship

Petitioner failed to prove an express trust: no written instrument, only self-serving testimony of profit-sharing. Resulting trust likewise unestablished: no clear transactional facts. Expression of intention to create a trust must be clear and supported by trustworthy evidence; parol evidence alone is insufficient.

Prescription and Adverse Possession

Without a trust, Crispulo’s open, continuous, exclusive possession from 1948 to 1978, coupled with tax declarations and payments, ripened into ownership by prescription under Act No. 190, Section 41, after ten years. Tax declarations plus actual possession constitute strong evidence of adverse claim.

Constructive Trust and Prescription

Even if a constructive trust arose upon Crispulo’s death, such trust does not suspend prescription. Prescription runs against constructive trustees; no repudiation requirement applies.

Estoppel and Laches

Petitioner’s silence and participation in probate and estate pa

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.