Title
Supreme Court
Ong vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 142056
Decision Date
Apr 19, 2001
Dispute over property ownership: petitioners claimed verbal donation and acquisitive prescription, but SC upheld respondents' Torrens title, ruling possession insufficient to defeat registered ownership.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 182737)

Relevant Facts

On January 18, 1985, the children of Pedro and Josefa Quiamco executed an Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs and a Deed of Donation that transferred ownership of the property at TCT No. RT-3781 to their sister Trinidad Quiamco, who accepted this donation. Subsequent to this transfer, another brother, Darius Quiamco, passed away. Trinidad allowed petitioners to occupy the property. In August 1994, the Cabucos purchased this property from Trinidad, leading to their acquisition of TCT No. 130676.

Initial Legal Actions

In 1995, the Cabucos demanded that the petitioners vacate the premises, which resulted in the filing of four complaints for illegal detainer after failed attempts at amicable settlement. The respondents argued that the petitioners' continued possession was solely due to the respondents' tolerance, while petitioners claimed ownership through an alleged prior verbal donation in 1972.

Lower Court Decisions

The Municipal Trial Court of Cebu City ruled against the petitioners, stating that their claim of a verbal donation could not override the respondents' ownership substantiated by a certificate of title. Following this decision, the Regional Trial Court affirmed the ruling, which was further upheld by the Court of Appeals.

Arguments on Certiorari

The petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court noted that their remedy did not substitute for an expired appeal period. They had received notice of the Court of Appeals' resolution on January 28, 2000, which indicated that their period to appeal had lapsed before they filed for certiorari on February 21, 2000.

Legal Principles Involved

The Supreme Court reaffirmed fundamental legal principles regarding property ownership and possession. It cited the doctrine that possession does not prevail against the ownership rights of a registered title holder. The Court stated that "prescription does not run against registered land," affirming that registered titles maintain their validity against claims of adverse possession.

Final Ruling of the Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the earlier decisions of the lower courts. The Court confirmed that because the petitioners failed to provide adequ

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.