Pangan Vs Court of Appeals

Pangan vs Court of Appeals
[G.R. No. L-39299. October 18, 1988]

P: J. CHanco
Facts:
In 1964, the petitioners filed an application for the registration of the land in
their names by virtue of their continuous and exclusive possession thereof since
1895, by themselves and their father and grandfather before them. After proper
notices by publication and posting as required, the trial court issued an order of
general default, there being no opposition to the application, and proceeded to hear
the evidence of the applicants ex-parte. On the basis thereof, the application was
approved. The herein private respondent filed a petition to set aside the said
decision, which the trial Court granted, admitting at the same time her opposition to
the application and setting the case for reception of her evidence. This evidence
sought to show that the land was inherited by Leon Hilario's three children, but the
son, Felicisimo, waived his right thereto and thereby made his two sisters, Silvestra
and Catalina, its exclusive co-owners. As Catalina's daughter, she was entitled to
one-half of the property, the other half going to Silvestra's heirs, the petitioners
herein and the latter's grandchildren. The trial judge issued an order dismissing the
opposition and reinstating his original order. His reason was that whatever rights
Teodora might have had over the property had been forfeited by extinctive
prescription. On appeal to the respondent court, this decision was reversed on the
ground that the appellees had not clearly proved that they had acquired the
property by prescription. Hence, the appellant was entitled to one-half of the
property as heir, conformably to her opposition in the court a quo. The petitioners'
position is that the respondent court erred in holding that the private respondent
was entitled to one-half of the land, which she had not lost by extinctive prescription
because it was held by them in trust for her. The CA also held that an implied trust
was created between the petitioners who were in possession of the land, and
Teodora Garcia. The trial court said, however, that assuming Teodora had the right
to the disputed property, the same was forfeited by her through extinctive
prescription by failure to assert it in time. The respondent court, rejecting this
contention, held that the petitioners' possession was not for their benefit alone but
also in favor of Teodora, who was a co-heir with them and therefore also a co-owner
of the property. In other words, their possession, while adverse to the rest of the
world, was not against Teodora herself, whose share they held in implied trust for
her as a co-owner of the land, and whose fruits their father shared with her
occasionally, or at least promised her she would get eventually.
Issue:
Whether or not there was repudiation of trust
Held:
There is clear repudiation of a trust when one who is an apparent
administrator of property causes the cancellation of the title thereto in the name of
the apparent beneficiaries and gets a new certificate of title in his own name. It is
only when the defendants, alleged co-owners of the property in question, executed
a deed of partition and on the strength thereof obtained the cancellation of the
title in the name of their predecessor and the issuance of a new one wherein they
appear as the new owners of a definite area each, thereby in effect denying or
repudiating the ownership of one of the plaintiffs over his alleged share in the entire
lot, that the statute of limitations started to run for the purposes of the action
instituted by the latter seeking a declaration of the existence of the co-ownership
and of their rights thereunder. The established evidence clearly shows that the
subject land was inherited by the petitioners and the private respondent as co-heirs
of their common ancestor, Leon Hilario, whose possession they continued to acquire
prescriptive title over the property. That possession was originally in the name of all
the heirs, including Teodora Garcia, who in fact had been assured by Tomas Pangan,
the petitioners' father, that she would get the share to which she was entitled. The
petitioners have not proved that their possession excluded their co-owner and aunt
or that they derived their title from a separate conveyance to them of the property
by Leon Hilario. Parenthetically, such a conveyance, if it existed, would be
questionable as it might have deprived Leon's other children of their legitime. In any
case, the petitioners appear to have arrogated the entire property to themselves
upon their father's death sometime in 1942 or at the latest in 1965 when they
sought to register the land in their names to the exclusion of Teodora Garcia.

Pangan Vs Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pangan Vs Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pangan Vs Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pangan vs Court of Appeals

[G.R. No. L-39299. October 18, 1988]

You might also like

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