Scribd
Upload
229 views3 pages

G.R. No. 230784

1) The Supreme Court ruled that while ownership cannot normally be acquired over registered land through acquisitive prescription, in this case the prescriptive period for filing an action to recover the land had lapsed. 2) Even though the contract of sale for the land was not notarized, the failure to follow the proper form does not invalidate the contract. 3) The petitioners were estopped from questioning the trial court's jurisdiction, as they were aware of the grounds for questioning jurisdiction from the beginning but failed to raise it until the appeal.

Uploaded by

Gillard Miguel Geralde
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
229 views3 pages

G.R. No. 230784

1) The Supreme Court ruled that while ownership cannot normally be acquired over registered land through acquisitive prescription, in this case the prescriptive period for filing an action to recover the land had lapsed. 2) Even though the contract of sale for the land was not notarized, the failure to follow the proper form does not invalidate the contract. 3) The petitioners were estopped from questioning the trial court's jurisdiction, as they were aware of the grounds for questioning jurisdiction from the beginning but failed to raise it until the appeal.

Uploaded by

Gillard Miguel Geralde
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

G.R. No.

230784

Facts:
Complaint dated July 1, 1993, heirs of Juan Catalina averred that they are , the
registered owner of a parcel of land denominated as Lot 1087 of Cadaster 317-D, located at
Barangay Taggat Norte, Claveria, Cagayan with a total area of 1,797 square meters and covered
by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-479 (S). Sometime in 1991, Heirs of Ofelia Yadao
occupied the subject land and refused to leave despite their opposition and vigorous
prohibition. With this Heirs of Juan Catalina filed Civil case against heirs of Ofelia Yadao. In their
answer they show a unnotarized contract of sale wherein that catalina’s Agreed to sell the Lot
1087 to Josefina Yadao. Another contact of sale which was notarized was shown and it was
executed in the person of Josefina Yadao and Casiana Dalo Calitina.

Notably, the owner's duplicate of OCT No. P-479 (S) was delivered to petitioners'
predecessors-in-interest. Although it is not clear who gave the OCT to them, records bear
that petitioners were the ones who offered this document in evidence. The delivery and
voluntary cession of the OCT to their predecessors-in-interest and petitioners' eventual
possession thereof were not contested by respondents. Respondents were able to offer in
evidence only a certified copy of OCT No. P-479 (S) from the Register of Deeds in Cagayan.

Petitioners predecessors-in-interest occupied and possessed Lot 1087 after its sale on


September 28, 1962 and thereafter until the present time. Dolores did not deny and has never
denied this fact. She has known of their occupation and possession since September 28, 1962.
The RTC ruled in favor of the Catelinas on the grounds that the contract of sale was null and
void because it was not notarized. The RTC finally ruled that petitioners could not have acquired
Lot 1087 through prescription because it was covered by a Torrens title. CA affirmed the RTC
ruling.

Issues:

1. Did the trial court have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint?

2. Did petitioners acquire ownership of the subject lot through acquisitive


prescription?

3. Is respondents' action already barred by prescription?

4. Is there a valid and binding contract selling Lot 1087 to the Yadaos?
Ruling:

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Petitioners are already estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC over the


subject matter of the present case.

The general rule is that the issue on jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at
any time in the proceedings, even on appeal.

Petitioners' ground for this argument was well-known to them from the start. They based
their claim on the assessed value of the subject lot as stated in the tax declaration submitted by
respondents. Petitioners could not have been but be aware of this amount since they also
assert that they have been paying real estate taxes on Lot 1087 since 1962. Thus, they could
have raised the issue on jurisdiction in their original answer back in 1993. Yet they did not.
Petitioners slept on their right to claim this defense.

Acquisitive prescription

Section 47 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529) declares that "no title to registered
land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or
adverse possession." Hence, since ownership cannot be gained through this means, it follows
that the registered owner is not automatically dispossessed of the registered land and
foreclosed from getting it back through the passage of time as the registered owner may resort
to appropriate remedies to recover the property. Appropriateness, however, requires that the
rule on extinctive prescription as explained below has not set in.

Extinctive Prescription

Extinctive prescription refers to the rule that bars even the registered owner from availing


of remedies to vindicate their right over the subject lot. It is a shield rather than a sword –
the mere fact that the party seeking recovery can no longer sue the party in possession does
not mean automatically that the latter already has the right to possess or own. The present
case demonstrates the legal principle that the law aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on
their rights. Vigilantibus, sed non dormientibus jura subverniunt.

By June 22, 1993, when the complaint for recovery of Lot 1087 was filed with the RTC,
the ultimate and all-encompassing prescriptive period of 31 years had already lapsed. It no
longer matters whatever respondents' cause of action was - contract or constructive trust
arising from a mistake or even fraud. The super prescriptive period has set in. With the lapse of
the prescriptive period to file an action, respondents could no longer seek relief from the
courts. Article 1358 of the Civil Code58 states that a contract that transmits or extinguishes real
rights or in any manner deals with immovable property is to be embodied in a public document.

Contract Of Sale

It is a settled rule that the failure to observe the proper form prescribed by Article 1358
does not render the acts or contracts invalid. This is because the purpose of Article 1358 is
merely to suggest a convenient form in which to deal with real rights, convenience being
measured in terms of the ease by which to prove the underlying transaction over the
immovable.1âшphi1

Thus, although a conveyance of land is not made in a public document, this form does not
affect the validity of such conveyance. As referenced above, the form mentioned under Article
1358 is not essential to the validity or even the enforceability of the embodied agreement or
transaction, but is intended for convenience. So long as the elements of consent, cause,
and consideration are present, the binding effect of a contract in any other form extends to the
parties and their heirs and assigns.59 As a result, even an oral contract involving real rights
produces legal effects between the parties, their heirs, and assigns.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy