Title
Pascua vs. Copuyoc
Case
G.R. No. L-9595
Decision Date
Nov 28, 1958
Juan Pascua's heirs fraudulently registered land in 1929, excluding plaintiffs Pedro and Andres Pascua. Plaintiffs sought annulment of titles and transactions, alleging fraud. Court remanded case to assess validity of claims.

Case Summary (A.M. No. 03-3-179-RTC, 03-10-576-RTC)

Factual Background

The plaintiffs claim ownership of the parcel of land based on a historical chain of titles originating from Juan Pascua during the Spanish regime. Juan Pascua donated the land to Victoriano Pascua and Bonifacia Lora on February 2, 1900. Subsequent transactions included the sale of half of the property to Andres Pascua in 1929 and a donation of the remaining half to Pedro Pascua in 1936. The plaintiffs assert continuity of possession and payment of land tax since 1900.

Discovery of Title Decree

In April 1940, the plaintiffs learned that a decree had been issued on October 31, 1929, during cadastral proceedings, which incorrectly favored the heirs of Juan Pascua. The plaintiffs made several demands for reconveyance from the defendants, who had been involved in subsequent transactions regarding the land. By June 1940, the plaintiffs filed a petition in the Cadastral Court to review the earlier decree.

Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint

The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint based on a motion by Quintin Melebo, citing that more than one year had elapsed since the decree's issuance, thus barring any proceedings to review it. The plaintiffs contended that the motion to dismiss failed to comply with relevant procedural rules, as Melebo did not raise the statute of limitations in his answer.

Procedural Issues

This appeal raises significant procedural issues regarding the timeliness of the dismissed complaint and the waiver of defenses. Sections 5 and 8 of Rule 8 and Rule 26 of the Rules of Court were crucial in determining whether Melebo had properly preserved the statute of limitations defense.

Legal Analysis

The decision cites that Melebo's failure to plead the defense of prescription in his answer leads to a presumption of waiver under the rules of civil procedure, making his subsequent motion to dismiss improper. The court found that the plaintiffs' allegations regarding fraudulent transactions warranted further examination, as the potentia

...continue reading

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