Heirs of Angel Yadao vs. Heirs of Juan Caletina,
G.R. No. 230784, February 15, 2022
Facts:
1. Respondents averred that they are the grandchildren and surviving heirs of Juan, the registered owner of a parcel of land denominated as Lot 1087 covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-479 (S).
2. Sometime in 1991, petitioners occupied the subject land and refused to leave despite their opposition and vigorous prohibition.
3. On June 22, 1993, respondents filed before the RTC a complaint for ownership and recovery of possession against petitioners
4. In their Answer they countered that on September 28, 1962, their parents Josefina Yadao and Domingo Yadao bought Lot 1087 for value and in good faith from Juan's surviving heirs, i.e., his second wife Casiana Dalo (Casiana). The sale was covered by a Contrata written in Ilocano
5. The Contrata was not notarized. But Josefina and Casiana executed another Deed of Absolute Sale on October 15, 1962 on the same Lot 1087 for the same price though this time had it notarized.
6. As alleged by petitioners, the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. P479 (S) was delivered to them. They also averred, without any dispute, that from the time their parents bought Lot 1087, they had been in public and continuous possession thereof.
7. Petitioners maintained that even assuming that no sale was made on Lot 1087, the fact remained that they had been in possession of the lot since 1962 to the present. On the other hand, as petitioners stressed, respondents brought the matter to court only on June 22, 1993 or more than thirty (30) years after they have taken possession thereof on September 28, 1962. By petitioners' conclusion, acquisitive prescription has ripened their de facto possession of Lot 1087 into legal possession and ownership.
Issues:
· Whether or not petitioners acquired ownership of the subject lot through acquisitive prescription
· Whether or not there is valid and binding contract
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
FIRST ISSUE
The Supreme Court held that ownership and possession of registered land cannot be obtained or acquired by prescription no matter the length of time of one's physical occupation and exercise of juridical rights of possession over the land.
As registered owners of the lots in question, the respondents have a right to eject any person illegally occupying their property. This right is imprescriptible. Even if it be supposed that they were aware of the petitioner's occupation of the property, and regardless of the length of that possession, the lawful owners have a right to demand the return of their property at any time as long as the possession was unauthorized or merely tolerated, if at all. This right is never barred by laches.
SECOND ISSUE
Respondents are the true owners of Lot 1087. They both held that petitioners have no claim of ownership over Lot 1087 based on the Contrata dated September 28, 1962 because it was unenforceable being a mere private instrument for lack of notarization, and the Deed of Sale dated October 15, 1962 did not confer ownership as it was void since the party identified as the seller - Casiana Dalo - was not the owner of Lot 1087.
It bears emphasis that aside from the phrase "Juan Caletina, Filipino, of legal age, married to Casiana Dalo" in OCT No. P-479 (S), no other evidence was submitted to prove that Casiana Dalo was indeed married to or in any manner an heir of Juan Caletina. On the contrary, respondents presented the marriage certificate 56 between Juan Caletina and Nicetas Galoran. There was dearth of proof that Juan and Niceias' marriage was ever annulled or declared a nullity or she was dead when Juan and Casiano were allegedly married.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment