Feb. 5., 1930 Director of Lands (petitioner) vs. Felix Abelardo et.al., claimants. Manuel Libunao et.

al clamant and appellees. Magdalena Dio et.al., claimants and appellants. (Romualdez, J.) 2 separate Decisions by Court of First Instance of Bulacan which were being appealed: (1)one-half of Lot 773 belongs to Manuel Libunao, while the other half of it belongs to him and his wife, Lucia Evangelista. (2) 2/3 of Lot 810 belongs to the conjugal partnership of Teodora Evangelista and Pedro C. Blas o subject to be repurchased by the Libunao couple for 13,892php within the period of 5 years starting from May 23, 1828. .. while 1/3 belongs to one Maria Gabriel Appelants, Dino et.al.s major contention; Trial court erred in holding that the deaf-mute couple, Fulgencia and Jose Dino, given their state of dependence, has prevented the running of any prescriptive period against them. o Prescription- mode of acquisition of land to title of land by long use and enjoyment. Appellees (Libunaos- Manuel, Delfin and Ines) claim they got land from their parents Ciriaco and Tomasa, *Manuel got his partition from his brother Delfin Appellants (Dinos)- claim that the partition which Manuel got belongs to Emeteria Ballesteros & Toribio Dino (grandparents of both the Libunao siblings and the Dino siblings,Fulgencia and Jose* .. magpipinsan pala sila..

Evidences: Appellants- Parol or verbal evidence lang Appellee-parol plus documentary evidence. Since Emeteria died, Appellees have been in charge of the land, sold parts of it to the people mentioned in the title of the case. Libunaoss evidenciary support, substantiate their claims, SCs opinion: Libunaos are true owners since Spanish times Celedonia Flores- witness for appellants, her testimony was for the appellees favor.. malas.. hehehe Julian Ignacio- witness for appellants pa rin.. but he said; appellants were given support, but not share of the crops = proves that Libuano possession was exclusive. Prescription was in favor of the appellees. Issue: Were the deaf mute couple (Fulgencia and Jose Dino) unable to run prescription because they were deaf and mute? Held: NOPE. Because they were not mentally incapacitated anyway. Their intellectual faculties were working. o Decisions of Lower Courts Affirmed. Costs against appellants.