Title
Mariano vs. Mariano
Case
G.R. No. 224083-84
Decision Date
Jun 28, 2021
Dispute over land ownership and partition; CA upheld Clemente's title, dismissing claims due to prescription and laches. SC affirmed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224083-84)

Applicable Law

The 1987 Philippine Constitution applies as the case decision date is notably after 1990. The pertinent laws considered in the judgment involve property rights under the Torrens system and statutes governing actions for partition, ejectment, and reconveyance, including Article 1456 of the Civil Code regarding implied trusts and the applicable prescriptive periods for filing actions.

Antecedents of the Case

The subject land was covered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 90516. Following Honesto Sr.'s death, a partition agreement was executed in 1973 by his surviving wife, Victoria Mariano, and his sons from his first marriage, including Romeo Mariano. This partition led to the issuance of several new titles. A subsequent series of property sales and the death of several parties significantly complicated the estate's administration. Notably, Honesto Jr., one of the original heirs, initiated an ejectment case against his half-sister, Susan Mariano, leading to escalating legal disputes regarding rights to the property.

Rulings of the Lower Courts

Initially, the Municipal Trial Court ruled favorably for Clemente Mariano, granting him possession and ordering Susan to vacate the premises. However, on appeal, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the ejectment case, citing a lack of sufficient evidence of Clemente’s ownership based on prior tolerance of Susan’s possession. In a parallel civil case for partition, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering collation and partition of the property based on their claims.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals regarding both the partition and ejectment cases and ultimately reversed the RTC rulings. The appellate court reaffirmed the validity of the 1973 partition agreement, emphasizing that the petitioners failed to institute an action to annul it within the prescribed four-year period from discovering the alleged fraud. Moreover, the court noted their inaction over 32 years indicated the application of laches, barring their claims.

Supreme Court's Ruling

Upon elevating the matter to the Supreme Court, it affirmed the Court of Appeals decision, emphasizing the principle of indefeasibility of title under the Torrens system. The Supreme Court ruled that registered ownership entitled Clemente to possession, dismissing assertions of pr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.