Scribd
Upload
98 views2 pages

GR No. 236826

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
98 views2 pages

GR No. 236826

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/ 2

GR No.

236826
Facts:
Since 1955 respondents and Epifania Hernandez is been Occupying the parcel of land
located in Matungao, Bulacan with an area of 200 square meter(subject property). The subject
property is part of a 1417 square meter property previously owned by Anastacio and Lourdes
Sakay (spouses Sakay) and spouses Godofredo and Florsita Cruz (spouses Cruz). Epifania and
herein respondents built their house on the said property with consent and tolerance of its
previous owners. In 1967 spouses Sakay sold the 1417 square meter to Herminio Marquez. And
in 1985 Herminio sold to Epifania the 200 square meter of land were her and the respondents
house was built for 400 pesos per square meter. Epifania made an initial payment of 2000
pesos evidenced by the provisional receipt dated October 23, 1985 which is signed by Herminio
Marquez.
Herminio and Epifania made an agreement that the payment of the remaining amount
by installment will be done by depositing the payment in their joint account and Epifania also
pad Herminio Metrobank checks all of which in the amount of 500 pesos each. According to the
respondents, Epifania manage to pay in full the agreed amount before her death in July 28,
1995.
Heirs of Epifania received a demand letters to vacate the premises of the subject
property from Alma Marie Marquez to whom Herminio waived his rights. Despites respondents
demands, Herminio allegedly refused to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor to Epifania.
Respondents filed a complaint for specific performance directing Herminio and Marquez to
execute a deed of avsolute sale in favor of the Heirs of Epifania. RTC ruled in favor of
respondents declaring the sale between Herminio and Epifania valid. Marquez filed a motion
for reconsideration but denied. Aggrieved , Marquez appealed before the CA. In the assailed
decision, the CA denied the appeal for lack of merit. Motion for reconsideration was also
denied.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the court of appeals gravely erred in affirming the ruling of the
RTC that there was a contract of sale between Efipania Hernadez and Herminio
Marquez.
2. Whether or not the court of appeals gravely erred in affirming the ruling of the
regional trial court that the action filed by respondents heirs of Hernandez is
one of quieting of title.
3. Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the ruling of the
RTC that the action filed by respondents heirs Hernandez is not Barred by
Laches.
Held:

The Court resolves to deny the Petition, the Court is in accord with the findings of RTC
and CA that there exists a perfected contract of sale between Epifania and Herminio. The
contract of sale was consummated when Herminio accepted the initial payment and the
transfer of ownership is manifested when Herminio allowed Epifania and her heirs to continue
their occupation on the said lot. Ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee
upon actual or constructive delivery thereof. In the instant case, ownership over the subject
property was transferred to Epifania as early as 1985 by virtue of its delivery by Herminio.
Respondents, as heirs of Epifania, thus acquired an equitable title to the subject property.
However, the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights presented by Marquez,
which resulted in the issuance of TCT No. T-81516 in the latter's name, was casting a cloud on
the said equitable title of respondents over the said property. It is for this reason that
respondents filed the present action against petitioner to, once and for all, remove such cloud
or to quiet the title.

Accordingly, it cannot be said that respondents are guilty of laches since their continuous
actual possession of the subject property has rendered their right to bring an action for quieting
of title imprescriptible. Moreover, it bears noting that Marquez's demand letters to
respondents to vacate the subject property were dated December 15, 1999 and July 17, 2000.
Thus, it was only during these instances that respondents came to know that Marquez was
claiming ownership over the property. Respondents then filed their complaint on November 21,
2000, while their amended complaint was filed on December 14, 2001. Clearly, laches has not
yet set in against respondents. As correctly observed by the RTC, it has been held that an action
for quieting of title does not prescribe against the person in actual possession of the disputed
property.

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