Title
Delos Reyes vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 121468
Decision Date
Jan 27, 1998
Heirs of Evarista delos Reyes sought reconveyance of 3,405 sqm land invalidly included in a 1943 title; SC dismissed due to laches, 30-year prescriptive period, and respondents' good faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 121468)

Background of the Case

The controversy centers around a parcel of land measuring 13,405 square meters that was originally owned by spouses Genaro and Evarista Delos Reyes. The portion in dispute consists of 3,405 square meters, which the petitioners claim was wrongfully included in a title issued to the purchasers of a separate but related parcel of land. The land was sold to Catalina Mercado and Eulalio Pena in 1942, and subsequent sales led to the current respondents acquiring the land in 1963.

Legal Proceedings and Rulings

The Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela dismissed the petitioners' action for reconveyance on the grounds of laches, acknowledging that the action was filed more than thirty years after the original cause of action arose. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, which led the petitioners to seek redress in the Supreme Court.

Prescription of Action

The petitioners contended that their cause of action accrued either upon the death of Evarista Delos Reyes in 1962 or when the title was issued to the Caias in 1963. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the cause of action actually arose on June 4, 1943, when the entire 13,405 square meters were registered under the names of the Pena spouses. Thus, the Court held that the petitioners’ claim was barred by the thirty-year prescription period outlined in the Civil Code and relevant judicial laws.

Conclusion of Innocent Purchaser Status

The Court emphasized the principle of protecting innocent purchasers for value, asserting that the Caias were entitled to the property acquired through a clean title, free from encumbrances. Given the lapse of time during which the petitioners failed to assert their rights, the Court deemed it unjust to allow the claim to succeed.

Misapplication of Legal Provisions

Petitioners' references to Articles 1409, 1410, and 1422 of the Civil Code regarding the imprescriptibility of void contracts were found to be misplaced. The court distinguished t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.