Title
Penales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 73611
Decision Date
Oct 27, 1986
Dispute over 1/2 share of Lot 6026; heirs of Segundo Lustria claimed ownership, but Supreme Court ruled in favor of Penales, citing prescription and expiration of encumbrance under Rule 74.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 18500)

Facts of the Case

The dispute originated in 1977 before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, which ruled in favor of the respondents. This judgment was upheld on appeal by the Intermediate Court of Appeals. The crux of the issue pertains to the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-14243 issued on June 8, 1953, by the Register of Deeds of Iloilo, which recorded the property in the name of Adalia Penaflorida, along with certain encumbrances signaling potential claims from the heirs of Segundo Lustria, who had died in 1931.

Sale and Title Transfer

On August 25, 1970, Adalia sold the entire property to the petitioners. Following this sale, they were issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-63055, which maintained the recorded encumbrances from TCT No. T-14243. In 1972, the petitioners executed an affidavit titled “Cancellation of Two Years Claim,” effectively cancelling the encumbrance regarding Segundo Lustria’s heirs, which was duly registered. This cancellation prompted the heirs, who claimed entitlement to half of the property, to initiate a legal action for reconveyance and damages in March 1977.

Trial Court’s Decision

The Trial Court determined that Adalia only possessed a half-share of the property at the time of the sale to the petitioners and ordered the transfer of ownership back to the Lustrias. Additionally, it awarded them moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, under the premise that petitioners had adversely appropriated the entire property.

Appeals and Appellate Court Ruling

The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s ruling, suggesting that the cancelation of the encumbrance only allowed the Lustrias to claim an implied trust on the property, which would be actionable within ten years per Article 1456 of the New Civil Code. The court concluded that the Petitioners set up an adverse title only upon cancelling the encumbrance in 1972; thus, the period for claims had not yet lapsed.

Reversal of the Appellate Court Decision

Upon review, it was determined that the Appellate Court misinterpreted key aspects of the case. Specifically, it was erroneous for the court to assert that the adverse claim only commenced upon the cancellation of the annotation in 1972, rather than recognizing that it started on June 8, 1953—when the title was issued in Adalia’s name. The heirs of Segundo Lustria were considered to have constructive notice of the title and the potential claims stemming from it from that date.

Constructive Notice and Prescription

The ruling reinforced that the rights of the Lustrias were extinguished beyond the two-year claim period set forth under S

...continue reading

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