ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45615   May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES<br /><br />068 Phil 200

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 45615. May 25, 1939.]

    TEOFILO SINCO, VICENTA SINCO, PORFIRIA SINCO, assisted by Proceso Barrios, ANTONIO SINCO and PANTALEON SINCO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SILVESTRA TEVES and BRUNO VICENTE, on his own behalf and as administrator of the testate of Francisco Diaz, Defendants-Appellees.

    Enrique Medina and Sotto & Sotto for Appellants.

    A. de Aboitiz Pinaga and Angel Calumpang for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    PARTITION; POSSESSION AS OWNER; PRESCRIPTION. — The properties left by R. S. y L. were not only already partitioned among the parties interested, but the heirs who have received the part corresponding to each one in the said partition have disposed of their shares one way or another, the children of R having conveyed theirs to the defendants. Moreover, the defendants are in possession as owners of the lands referred to in the complaint, having acquired them from the children of R since the year 1910, at least, as the plaintiffs themselves admit in their complaint. More than twenty (20) years having elapsed since the defendants have been in possession as owners of these lands, they have acquired ownership thereof by prescription.


    D E C I S I O N


    AVANCEÑA, C.J. :


    Rafael Sinco y Librado, who died in 1892, left several children, among them, Moises and Regina. The plaintiffs are Teofilo Sinco, son of Moises, and Vicenta Sinco and Porfiria Sinco, Moises’ grandchildren. Antonio Sinco and Pantaleon Sinco are children of Regina.

    The plaintiffs, alleging that the properties left by Rafael Sinco y Librado belonged pro indiviso to his heirs and that the defendants hold without just title those described in the complaint, which are a part of said properties, ask in this action that the defendants be ordered to return to them the portion of these lands and the products thereof corresponding to them as heirs of Rafael Sinco Y Librado.

    It is an established fact that in the same year 1892 Rafael Sinco y Librado, while still living, with the concurrence of his heirs, made a partition of his properties among them, allotting to Antonio Sinco, Pantaleon Sinco and Cecilio Sinco, children of Regina, the lands described in the complaint known as "Odiongan" and "Talaptap." This partition appears in a document, Exhibit 3, and that it was made is evidenced by the fact that those who took part in the partition thereafter disposed of the share corresponding to each one of them.

    Subsequently, that is, about the year 1910, the plaintiffs Antonio Sinco and Pantaleon Sinco, through their brother Cecilio Sinco, conveyed the part of the properties corresponding to them, namely, the subject matter of the complaint, to the defendants. While the plaintiffs Antonio Sinco and Pantaleon Sinco, admitting having signed the documents which evidence this conveyance, state having done so without knowing the contents thereof, nevertheless, this statement is gratuitous and is contradicted by that of the notary public who ratified these documents. This conveyance was, moreover, ratified by another public document in 1915.

    It appears, on the other hand, that the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants, as to the lands referred to in the complaint, have been in possession as owners of these properties since they were assigned to them in the partition of 1892. The defendants continued in the possession thereof, also as owners, since they were conveyed to them in 1910 up to the present.

    Finally, the defendants, in the corresponding cadastral case, obtained the certificate of title to these lands is their names, without the plaintiffs or anyone else having laid claim upon these lands in said case.

    From the foregoing it appears that the properties left by Rafael Sinco y Librado were not only already partitioned among the parties interested, but the heirs who have received the part corresponding to each one in the said partition have disposed of their shares one way or another, the children of Regina having conveyed theirs to the defendants. Moreover, the defendants are in possession as owners of the lands referred to in the complaint, having acquired them from the children of Regina since the year 1910, at least, as the plaintiffs themselves admit in their complaint. More than twenty (20) years having elapsed since the defendants have been in possession as owners of these lands, they have acquired ownership thereof by prescription.

    The acts imputed by the plaintiffs to the defendants as indicative of a recognition on their part of the undivided state of the properties left by Rafael Sinco y Librado, do not affect this conclusion. Said acts do not unequivocally show this recognition and, moreover, they were executed in connection with other persons who were not the plaintiffs.

    It is not amiss to state that these lands, known as "Odiongan" and "Talaptap", did not have, while they still belonged to Rafael Sinco y Librado, the area which they now have, because there have been added to them other adjoining properties which the defendants had been acquiring from other owners.

    In view of these facts, we hold that the appealed judgment should be, as the same is hereby, affirmed in so far as it absolves the defendants from the complaint, with the costs to the appellants. So ordered.

    Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, Conception, and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45615   May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES<br /><br />068 Phil 200


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED