Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/273763040/9-Bucton-vs-Gabar-pdf
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:54:36+00:00

Document:
ZOSIMO GABAR, JOSEFINA LLAMOSO GABAR AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
Rizalindo V. Diaz for petitioners.
Alfredo Ber. Pallarca for respondents.
defendant Zosimo Gabar, husband of his co-defendant Josefina Llamoso Gabar.
of Deeds of Misamis Oriental.
which the latter signed a receipt marked as Exhibit A.
Zosimo Gabar signed a receipt marked as Exhibit E.
leasing the upper portion as a dormitory.
failed. to cancel TCT No. Jr. upon presentation to him of the above-mentioned deed of conveyance. and that pertaining to plaintiffs. Their excuse: the entire land was still mortgaged with the Philippine National Bank as guarantee for defendants' loan of P3. Exhibit I. under Torrens Certificate of Title No. this time employing Atty. counsel tried but failed. Defendants' evidence — based only on the testimony of defendant Josefina Llamoso Gabar — denies agreement to sell to plaintiffs one-half of the land in litigation. Bonifacio Regalado to intercede. plaintiffs were compelled to employ Atty. SO ORDERED. Defendants remained unmoved. In 1953. Exhibit I-1. too. 6337. Mis. giving the same excuse. In the meantime. 1970. rendered judgment the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE. 6337. Defendants repeatedly declined to accommodate plaintiffs. Exhibit I-2.500 and to pay the costs. victory currency.000. one to plaintiffs and another to defendants. indicated as Lot 337-B in the Subdivision Plan. sold to me by Mrs. Plaintiffs persevered. Exhibit I. reads: Cagayan. plaintiffs continued to insist on obtaining their separate title. should defendants for any reason fail to do so. to wit. which sum is one-half of the purchase value of Lot No.000 the receipt she signed. . with the consent of defendants (who were living on their portion).500. Gabar". II and in its stead to issue Transfer Certificates of Title. Aquilino Pimentel. to whom was issued on June 20. cancelling OCT No. judgment is hereby rendered for plaintiffs: 1) Ordering defendants within thirty days from receipt hereof to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of plaintiffs of the portion of the land covered by OCT No. 1947 TCT No. January 19.500 in attorney's fees. not payment of one-half of the price of the land (which was P3. P1. then P400 — were loans. Hence. as part payment of the one thousand five hundred (P1. Carmen Roa Villarin. When Josefina received the first amount of P1. II. 2) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro.00) pesos. On the basis of the facts quoted above the trial court on February 14. 337. this. and 3) Ordering defendants to pay unto plaintiffs attorney's fees in the amount of P1. plaintiffs had the entire land surveyed and subdivided preparatory to obtaining their separate title to their portion. II. planting fruit trees and receiving the rentals of their buildings. Exhibit A. Exhibit 1-2. Nicanora Gabar the sum of one thousand (P1. this case. She declared that the amounts she had received from plaintiff Nicanora Gabar Bucton — first. which is the dividing line between the portion pertaining to defendants. and ordering defendants to present and surrender to the Register of Deeds their TCT No. "(Sgd.000). 1946 Received from Mrs. 1947 the spouses Villarin executed the deed of sale of the land abovementioned in favor of defendant Josefina Llamoso Gabar. Exhibit D. Exhibit I.In January. Plaintiffs continued enjoying their portion of the land. II so that the same may be cancelled. 1947: Exhibit D-1. to persuade defendants to comply with their obligation to plaintiffs. Frustrated. which has cost plaintiffs P1.500 contracted on June 16.000) pesos. the deed shall be executed in their behalf by the Provincial Sheriff of Misamis Oriental or his Deputy. This defense is devoid of merit. Plaintiffs then sought to obtain a separate title for their portion of the land in question. based on the subdivision Plan and Technical Description above-mentioned. After the survey and the planting of the concrete monuments defendants erected a fence from point 2 to point 4 of the plan. and described in the Technical Description. Or.) Josefina Ll.
was nevertheless proved by both documentary and parole evidence. 1951). for we think that plaintiffs really paid for a portion of the lot in question pursuant to their agreement with the defendants that they would then own one-half of the land. although not consigned in a public instrument or formal writing. 1946. had not yet prescribed when they filed the present action. 2. 1948. 1968.00 to respondent Josefina Gabar as purchase price of one-half of the lot now covered by TCT No. It is by law provided that: "ART. the plaintiffs' action to enforce the alleged written contract (Exh. 1946.500.000. and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto. though not evidenced by a formal deed. 1946.00 on January 19. 1 Although at the time said petitioner paid P1. they became such owners on January 24. Petitioners' appeal is predicated on the proposition that owners of the property by purchase from private respondents. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues: 1. "A" which was executed way back on January 19. and. their action to compel the vendors to execute a formal deed of conveyance so that the fact of their ownership may be inscribed in the corresponding certificate of title. Petitioners therefore became owners of the one-half portion of the lot in question by virtue of a sale which. 2. This period of ten (10) years is expressly provided for in Article 1144 of the Civil Code. An action arising from a written contract does not prescribe until after the lapse of ten (10) years from the date of action accrued. one cannot sleep on one's right and expect it to be preserved in its pristine purity. and being in actual. which reversed the judgment of the trial court and ordered petitioners' complaint dismissed. such title passes by operation of law to the buyer or grantee. In the premises. Upon an obligation created by law. Therefore. twenty-two (22) years and twenty-six (26) days had elapsed. the payment by petitioner by Nicanora Gabar Bucton of P1. A) which was executed way back on January 19. It is not without reluctance that in this case we are constrained to sustain the defense of prescription. 1144. From January 19. for the time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale or real estate produces legal effects between the parties." If eternal vigilance is the price of safety. 1968. for respondent Court of Appeals found as a fact "that plaintiffs really paid for a portion of the lot in question pursuant to their agreement with the defendants that they would own one-half (1/2) of the land.00-loan obtained by private respondents from petitioners on July 30. 1946 to February 15. The error of respondent Court of Appeals in holding that petitioners' right of action had already prescribed stems from its belief that the action of petitioners is based on the receipt Exh. We hold that the present appeal is meritorious. But we cannot apply ethical principles in lieu of express statutory provisions. private respondents were not yet the owners of the lot.Appeal was interposed by private respondents with the Court of Appeals. 3. Upon a written contract. 1947. 2 Thus. Upon a judgment. since petitioners' action was filed on February 15. her second payment of P400. 1946.00 as part payment of the purchase price on January 19. continuous and physical possession thereof since the date of its purchase." That sale. therefore. There is no question that petitioner Nicanora Gabar Bucton paid P1. is nevertheless valid and binding between petitioners and private respondents.00 (out of the P1. in the view of said appellate court. when a deed of sale was executed in their favor by the Villarin spouses.00 on May 2." is applicable. up to the amount of P100. and the compensation.000. A) was not brought within the prescriptive period of ten (10) years from the time the cause of action accrued. II. or after the lapse of twenty-two (22) years and . which provides that "[w]hen a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or alienates and delivers it. resulted in the full payment of the purchase price and the consequential acquisition by petitioners of ownership over one-half of the lot. 1. on the following legal disquisition: Appellees' alleged right of action was based on the receipt (Exh. when the complaint was filed in this case. The land in question is admittedly covered by a torrens title in the name of Josefina Llamoso Gabar so that the alleged possession of the land by the plaintiffs since 1947 is immaterial because ownership over registered realty may not be acquired by prescription or adverse possession (Section 40 of Act 496).000. Article 1434 of the Civil Code.
JJ. Fernandez. 1968. or suit upon the adverse claim. 686-87. 1964. ibid. and that as plaintiffappellee is in possession of the land. We hold that petitioners' action has not prescribed.. de Cruz.. 245 Pac. Court of Appeals. 334. The prevailing rule is that the right of a plaintiff to have his title to land quieted. 683. the same is already barred according to the provisions of Article 1144 of the New Civil Code. 930.. 4 L-20954. Branch IV. Muñoz de Bustillo. The Law phil Proj ect . 8 Phil. May 24. Inquimboy v. et al. et al. 459. invoke remedy within the statutory period. p. as well as the other documents of similar import (Exh. 10 SCRA 549. 328. 14). are the receipts issued by private respondents to petitioners. explained that. v.. claiming to be owners thereof. Rhea. 439. We held therein that ". to remove the cloud upon the appellee's ownership by the refusal of the appellants to recognize the sale made by their predecessors. evidencing payments by the latter of the purchase price of one-half of the lot. July 15.B. et al. he has a continuing right to the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of such claim and its effect on his title. "B" and Exh. 191. Reyes.A. 108 Phil. 4 where We ruled that by the delivery of the possession of the land. 1054. Pajimula. Miguel. 553. Guerrero v. the date of said document.. L-24419. the decision and resolution of respondent Court of Appeals appealed from are hereby reversed. 20 L. 53 (1908). 20 SCRA 186. vs... i.e. is not barred while the plaintiff or his grantors remain in actual possession of the land. actually. One who claims property which is in the possession of another must. The real and ultimate basis of petitioners' action is their ownership of one-half of the lot coupled with their possession thereof.. 52.. as against one who is asserting some adverse claim or lien thereon. et al. speaking thru Mr. that the action is actually not for specific performance. 47) The doctrine was reiterated recently in Gallar v. 3 this Court. 12 Phil. 1967. "E"). or to assert any superior equity in his favor. Jur. et al.L. 460 (1907). under the circumstances no enforcement of the contract is needed.twenty-six (26) days from. Fernando.. 480 of the New Civil Code) that actions to quiet title to property in the possession of the plaintiff are imprescriptible (44 Am.Arellano Law Foundation .. since the delivery of possession of the land sold had consummated the sale and transferred title to the purchaser. and the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental. Barredo. et al. See also Castrillo. v. Zaldivar (Chairman). 1 ä w phï 1 . ñë t Footnotes 1 Couto v. 10 Phil.. 3004. The aforecited document (Exh. 1057.R. it is an established rule of American jurisprudence (made applicable in this jurisdiction by Art. Aquino. (44 Am. Inland Empire Land Co. 24 SCRA 59. In Sapto. WHEREFORE. the action for conveyance is one to quiet title. is revived. Cortes. the action is imprescriptible. concur. Cooper vs. Grant County. v. in its Civil Case No. Court of Appeals. p. Estoque v. 2 Llacer v. to remove the cloud cast upon appellee's ownership as a result of appellant's refusal to recognize the sale made by his predecessor. 62. the sale was consummated and title was transferred to the appellee. Considering that the foregoing circumstances obtain in the present case. "A"). He may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title in attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right. since all it seeks is to quiet title. Husain. the reason for this rule being that while the owner in fee continues liable to an action. and that.. proceeding. Castrillo. 3 103 Phil. 47. Justice J. Costs against private respondents. et al. Jur. which entitles them to a conveyance of the property. Fabiana. But the rule that the statute of limitations is not available as a defense to an action to remove a cloud from title can only be invoked by a complainant when he is in possession.. March 31. Paez Vda. 138 Wash. it seems.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.