Obligations and Contracts Recit Ready Digests (Prescription)

Atty. Mison
Dana Beatrice Lopez, 1-E

Case title Facts Doctrine
Godinez v. CA 7 Bergado heirs inherited a lot from their deceased
father Felix Bergado. Judge Pablo mistakenly
entered 1/6 instead of 1/7 (partition). Because of
that error and other clerical errors, no decree was
issued and the heirs didnt obtain a Torrens title.
Lots were transferred to Patalinghug and
Magsumbol. Magsumbol sold the land to the Igots.
38 yrs after Judge Pablo rendered his decision,
Judge Mendoza corrected the clerical errors in
Judge Pablos decision and the land became
registered (1967). Igots sued some Bergado heirs
(Godinez) for the reconveyance of their lot.
Magsumbols acquired the lot through sec 41 of the
Code of Civil Procedure and that right was
transmitted to the Igots.

The Code of Civil Procedures prescriptive period
shall be followed in the case at bar.

The MAGSUMBOLS had been in continuous,
uninterrupted and notorious possession of the land
for more than half a century and the canons of
common sense side with them.
Heirs of Amarante v. CA Infiel had possession of the land long before
WW2. Almarante and the heirs of Infiel had been
in peaceful possession of the land after Infiels
death. Their possession was disturbed by Bolo,
common-law husband of one of Felix Malonis
grandchildren. He claimed that he bought the
property. Bolo relied on tax declarations on
claiming the land.


Evidence of possession: The coconut trees are
approximately 70 yrs of age. Conclusion: Infiel had
begun occupying the area a very long time ago.

Possession already exceeded 30 years, which is
the period for extraordinary prescription provided
for in Art. 1137 of the Civil Code. (Extraordinary
prescription)
On Section 48(b) of the Commonwealth Land Act
o XXX Those who by themselves or through their
predecessors-
in-interest have been in open, continuous and exclusive
possession and occupation of agricultural lands under a
bonafide claim for ownership XXX for at least thirty
years XXX
Republic v. CA Baloy applied to register his land but the Bureau of
Lands opposed alleging that the land has become
public through Act 627 pursuant to the EO
declaring the area to be within US Naval
Reservation. Baloy failed to file his claim w/in
prescriptive period.
Under the provision, private land can only be
deemed to have become public land only by
virtue of a judicial declaration after due notice
and hearing. None of these were followed. Land
is still private in character.

On possessory Character of the US Navy:
Obligations and Contracts Recit Ready Digests (Prescription)
Atty. Mison
Dana Beatrice Lopez, 1-E
-its a commodatum
-possession is only transient (temporary); no
ownership.
Ramos v. CA Spouses Ramos mortgaged their property to PNB
to guarantee payment of a loan. Catalina
(daughter) inherited the property. Catalina sold it
to Catambay. Catambay religiously paid his taxes.
Catalinas daughter, Salud, wants to get her land
back, saying that in the Deed of Absolute Sale, her
mothers signature was fictitiously obtained. Action
was filed 39 yrs later.
(Catambays) Tax receipts: strong evidence of
possession

Action for reconveyance had already prescribed as
it was filed 39 years from registration of the
property in respondents names

Adverse possession of the subject property had
ripened to ownership after the lapse of ten
years, good or bad faith under Section 40 of the
Code of Civil Procedure
Coronado v. CA Juana inherited a parcel of land from her
grandfather. Monterola included her land in the 2
parcels of land he was selling to Coronado.
Coronado says Monterola bequeathed the
property to him. Coronado says that Juana already
foreclosed whatever right she had w/ the property
since Monterola had continuous possession of the
property for more than 10 yrs and that it ripened
into absolute ownership.
Monterolas continued possession of the property
has not ripened into full ownership.

Monterola NEVER CLAIMED OWNERSHIP over
the property. He acknowledged that the boundary
owner of the property is Juana. -> During
Monterolas lifetime, Juana was able to enter and
reap the benefits/produce of the property.

Acts of possessory character performed by one
who holds by mere tolerance of the owner are
clearly not the concept of possession as
enshrined in this Code.
Corpus v. Padilla Corpuz cultivated the land that Domingo
abandoned. Mariano Corpuz now claims
ownership by prescription of the lands which were
previously abandoned by Pedro Domingo and
which he cultivated.
The claim of Corpuz for acquisitive prescription is
contradicted by his own evidence
Mariano Corpuz expressly recognizes that the
subject lot forms part of the property to which
Pedro Domingo has title thereto
One cannot recognize the rights of another and
at the same time claim adverse possession which
can ripen to ownership, thru acquisitive
prescription
Obligations and Contracts Recit Ready Digests (Prescription)
Atty. Mison
Dana Beatrice Lopez, 1-E
Reyes v. CA Florentino Reyes and his sisters entered into a
Deed of Extrajudicial partition. F. Reyes says his
sisters waived their rights to the properties except
one, Paola Reyes (He gave her a tiny portion).
Reyes sisters are saying their signatures are
forged. F. Reyes executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale, selling the land to his children, but moved to
nullify the same.
Evidence of forgery (handwriting the same in all
signatures..etc.) F.Reyes failed to rebut info.

On ownership by prescription: F.Reyes did not
meet the requirements of good faith evidenced
by forgery.

No acquisitive prescription since the land is a
titled property. Adverse possession cant be
claimed since Reyes sisters resided in the land.
Negrete v. CFI of Marinduque Ignacia Negrete sues Maderazo because he
forcibly entered her land and cultivated it. Lower
court ruled in favor of Maderazo. Negrete filed for
recovery of the land 10 years after. Maderazo
claims shes barred by prescription. CFI ruled that
Maderazo possessed land in good faith for 10 yrs
= acquisitive prescription. Negrete says Maderazo
couldnt claim good faith in possessing the lot
because the deed of sale covers a parcel of land
patently different from the disputed land.
Art. 1134 requires possession in good faith and
with just title for the time fixed by law.
Possessor good faith one who is not aware of
any flaw in his title or mode of acquisition

Not being a possessor in good faith (since he was
aware of the flaws in the title), Maderazo can
acquire ownership only by extraordinary
acquisitive prescription through an uninterrupted
adverse possession of 30 years.

Applicable statute in this case is the prescription of
action for recovery of a real property which is 30
years without prejudice to what is established
for the acquisition of ownership and other real
rights by prescription

Magtira v. CA Isidro and Zacarias entered into an agreement:
Sale with right to repurchase for 4 years. Isidro
died and was succeeded by his daughter, Sofia.
She filed an action alleging that the previous
agreement was just a mere loan w/ a real
mortgage. Court stated accdg. to the wording and
intent, it was a sale w/ right to repurchase. Sofia
was also guilty w/ laches since she brought the
Sofia was barred from any action to claim due to
acquisitive prescription.

Zacarias enjoyed an uninterrupted, adverse, public
and peaceful possession of the litigated property
for 11 years w/c under Article 1134 of the Civil
Code ripened into ownership by ordinary
prescription through possession of at least ten
Obligations and Contracts Recit Ready Digests (Prescription)
Atty. Mison
Dana Beatrice Lopez, 1-E
action 11 yrs after. years.

Doliendo v. Biarnesa Doliendo bought a parcel of land from Belarmino.
When Belarmino died, parcel of land bought by
Doliendo was included in the public auction to w/c
Biarnesa was the highest bidder and was awarded
the land. He was in possession of the land for
more than 10 yrs.
Ordinary prescription. Biarnesa was in possession
of the subject property for more than ten (10)
years. Therefore, he had acquired a title by
prescription under the provisions of the Civil Code.

Biarnesa being the highest bidder in the public
auction sale was a transaction in good faith and he
bought it from someone he believed had the right
to sell.

Solis v. CA Antonio Solis allowed Jose Solis to occupy their
parcel of land until they (Jose Solis and wife) were
financially stable enough to vacate the premises.
Jose Solis refused to vacate the area after Antonio
asked him to. Jose argues that he owns the land
through prescription and donation propter nuptias

Defendants (Jose) contention: Simeon Solis
donated property to Tomas. Tomas Solis donated
land to his son, Jose Solis.)

Plaintiffs (Antonio) contention: No proof of transfer
of ownership from Simeon to Tomas.
Jose Solis owned property by prescription. The
lapse of more than twenty (20) years of adverse
possession by the defendants is sufficient to
confer ownership on them of the disputed portion
under the Old Civil Code, which requires only ten
(10) years of adverse possession.


The just title required for acquisitive prescription
to set in is: such title where, although there was a
mode of transferring ownership, still something is
wrong because the grantor is not the owner.
(titulo Colorado) Grantor: Tomas Solis (Joses
father) not the owner.

The right given by the statute of limitations does
not depend upon and has no necessary
connection with the validity of the claim under
which the possession was held.

Tan v. CA At the time the Central Bank closed the
Continental Bank for alleged bankruptcy, Vicente
T. Tan was a stockholder of said Continental
DAMAGES: Since the action was started 12 years
after, action is barred by prescription whether
under RA 265 or Art 1146.
Obligations and Contracts Recit Ready Digests (Prescription)
Atty. Mison
Dana Beatrice Lopez, 1-E
Bank. He was arrested due to criminal charges
against him for irregular transactions at
Continental Bank. Central bank ordered closure of
continental. While under detention, Tan executed
agreements: stock transfer worth 300k and other
properties. Assignees of Tan rehabilitated the
bank and it was opened under another name:
Interbank. After the lapse of more than 12 yrs, Tan
filed for damages and reconveyance. Central
bank: action has been barred by the statute of
limitations&prescription.

Sec. 29. Proceedings upon insolvency xxxx At any
time within ten days after the Monetary Board has
taken charge of the assets of any banking institution,
such institution may apply to the court of First
Instance for an order requiring the Monetary
Board to show cause why its designated official
should not be enjoined from continuing such
charge of its assetsetc.
Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted
within four years: xxx (2) Upon a quasi-delict.

RECONVEYANCE:
1. Art. 1140 prescription is 4 yrs. (Good
faith)
2. Art. 1132 prescription is 8 yrs.

Tan had at most eight years within which to pursue
a reconveyance. He came to court too late.

South City Homes v. Republic South City Homes claims possession of a strip of
land adjoining the two parcels of land, which it
has bought from its predecessors-in-interest. The
Republic of the Philippines argues that the
elongated piece of land between the two lots now
owned by South City Homes used to be a canal
which could not have been appropriated by the
purchasers of the adjacent lots or their
successors-in-interest

South City Homes claim is rejected not because it
is a private corporation barred from acquiring
public land but because it has failed to establish
its title to the disputed lot whatever its nature.
(No proof of ownership)

The applicant had been in possession of the
property for less than three years. This was far
too short of the prescriptive period required for
acquisition of immovable property, which is ten
years if the possession is in good faith and thirty
years if in bad faith, or if the land is public.

Dira v. Tanega Dira, Tanega, and Pagulayan entered into a
partnership to engage in the business of printing.
Dira failed to pay of his loans after several
demands made by his partners. Tanega gained full
ownership of the company and changed its name.
Diras action is barred by the statute of limitations.
Action was commenced 9 yrs after expiration of
partnership contract (way too late).
According to Art. 1132 of the Civil Code, "the
ownership of personal property also prescribes through
Obligations and Contracts Recit Ready Digests (Prescription)
Atty. Mison
Dana Beatrice Lopez, 1-E


Dira filed an action to recover his salaries, his
share in the rental value of the printing equipment,
and for the accounting of the partnership affairs.

Tanega contends that he has been operating the
business since 1947 (8 yrs of possession) without
any intervention or participation of Dira, hence his
action has already prescribed.
uninterrupted possession for eight years, without need
of any other condition."

In good faith or bad faith, after eight years of
actual adverse possession, Tanega acquired clear
ownership of appellants share by acquisitive
prescription.