Title
De la Cerna vs. De la Cerna
Case
G.R. No. L-28838
Decision Date
Aug 31, 1976
A dispute over property acquired during marriage led to an extra-judicial partition after the husband's death. Plaintiffs, claiming to be heirs from a prior marriage, filed for partition and reconveyance 21 years later. The Supreme Court ruled the action had prescribed due to constructive notice from the registered partition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-28838)

Legal Background and Proceedings

The property in question, a residential lot measuring 5,006 square meters, was originally acquired by Narciso de la Cerna and his wife Eladia Bustamante. Following Narciso's death, an "Extra-Judicial Partition" was executed on August 26, 1946, by Eladia and their children, Lourdes and Melecio, distributing the property. This partition was registered, and new title was issued on September 4, 1946, to Eladia (1/2 share) and to Lourdes and Melecio (1/2 share collectively). In 1949, Melecio ceded his share to Lourdes, who obtained full ownership.

In 1967, Aquilino and Apolinario de la Cerna filed an action for partition and reconveyance against Lourdes and their half-brother Antonio, asserting their rights as children of Narciso through his first marriage to Eulalia Quesada. In response, the defendants filed affirmative defenses centered on the assertion of prescription of the plaintiffs' claims, as they argued that the action was filed well beyond the legally prescribed period.

Court's Dismissal and Rationale

On July 28, 1967, the Court of First Instance of Davao dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint on the grounds of prescription after a preliminary hearing into the matter. The court noted that the action for partition and reconveyance was initiated over twenty years after the relevant title was registered, which exceeded the four-year prescription period applicable to actions based on fraud and the ten-year prescription for actions based on constructive trusts as articulated in relevant case law.

The dismissal hinged on the conclusion that the 1946 registration of the extra-judicial partition constituted constructive notice and effectively repudiated any fiduciary relationship that might have existed, thus barring the plaintiffs from any claims of ownership or partition that were based on an alleged trust.

Appellants' Argument and Defendants' Counterclaims

In their appeal, the plaintiffs contested the dismissal, framing their argument around the assertion that the trial court erred in resolving the issue of prescription without allowing for a trial on the merits. However, the grounds for the plaintiffs' claims were fundamentally flawed given the timelines established by the registration of the deed of partition and the issuance of the new titles.

The court clarified that regardless of the nature of the claim (be it rooted in alleged fraud or constructive trust), the plaintiffs failed to act within the prescribed periods defined by law, as the title in favor of the defendants had been established for over two decades prior to their filing.

Judicial Conclusion

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruli

...continue reading

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