Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1924 > February 1924 Decisions >

G.R. No. 21271 February 7, 1924 - ISIDRO PENSADER, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRA PENSADER, ET AL.

047 Phil 959:





PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 21271. February 7, 1924. ]

ISIDRO PENSADER, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALEJANDRA PENSADER, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Lorenzo C. Campo for Appellants.

Marcelo T. Boncan for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. ADVERSE POSSESSION; VERBAL DONATION OF REAL PROPERTY. —While the verbal donation, under which the defendant and his predecessors in interest have been in possession of the lands in question, is not effective as a transfer of title, yet it is a circumstance which may explain the adverse and exclusive character of the possession.


D E C I S I O N


ROMUALDEZ, J. :


In this case the partition is sought of a coconut land described in the complaint and which the plaintiffs allege is an undivided inheritance between them and the defendants.

The court absolved the latter from the complaint and the plaintiffs took this appeal, assigning as errors of the lower court the holding that the appellants and appellees have been holding the disputed land in common; the finding that the possession exercised by the appellee Silverio P. Revelar and his predecessors in interest for more than thirty years is adverse to them, and the holding that plaintiffs’ action has prescribed; the finding that the deceased Canuto Pensader transferred to Fr. Pablo Pajarillo the title to said land, when as a matter of fact he was commissioned only to see that the realty was distributed among the former’s heirs; and finally its failure to permit the plaintiffs to introduce parol evidence concerning certain admissions made by the appellee Alejandra Pensader and her husband and by Vicente Revelar as to her title to the land.

The facts proven are: Canuto Pensader, who was living maritally with Maria Revelar, acquired the land in question from Eulalio Punio. Said Canuto had several brothers whose children, nephews of said Canuto, are the herein plaintiffs and defendant Alejandra Pensader, and died without leaving any forced heir.

In 1892, Canuto Pensader donated one-half of the land in dispute to his paramour Maria Revelar, and the other half to his niece Alejandra Pensader, defendant herein, mother of the other defendant, Silverio P. Revelar. By virtue of this donation and immediately after the death of Canuto Pensader, which occurred at the end of the year 1892, Maria Revelar and Alejandra Pensader, the later being married with Vicente Revelar, entered upon the possession of the land in question and since then they have been cultivating it until the death of Vicente Revelar, whose heirs, in an extra-judicial partition and in accord with Alejandra Pensader allotted the land to the herein defendant Silverio P. Revelar. Maria Revelar in turn waived her share of the realty in favor of said Silverio P. Revelar, who has been cultivating and improving the same and enjoying its fruits since then. The possession of this Silverio P. Revelar, who has been cultivating and improving the same and enjoying its fruits since then. The possession of this Silverio P. Revelar, together with that of his parents and aunt Maria Revelar, dates back to thirty years ago, and is continuous, public peaceful, and under claim of ownership.

It was not shown that such possession was in common with the plaintiffs. As above stated, the origin of said possession is adverse to such community, namely, the donation, which although it is not established by a sufficient documentary evidence, stands in this case as a circumstance explaining the exclusive character of the possession of Maria Revelar and Alejandra Pensader and that of their common successor in interest Silverio P. Revelar. Besides, it appears that in the year 1905, the plaintiffs made an extra-judicial demand for the partition of this property, but did not obtain it, the defendants having continued in possession and exclusive enjoyment thereof.

These facts, under the circumstances shown by the evidence as a whole, are sufficient to establish the adverse character of the possession which the defendant Silverio P. Revelar and his predecessors in interest had been exercising over the land in question, and, therefore, to justify the holding that the action brought by the plaintiffs has already prescribed.

We do not find in the assignments of error sufficient merit for altering the judgment appealed from. It is, therefore, affirmed with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Ostrand, and Johns, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1924 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20813 February 2, 1924 - JULIA HASEMEYER v. PNB

    046 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. 19495 February 2, 1924 - HONRION LASAM v. FRANK SMITH

    045 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 21700 February 5, 1924 - LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    045 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. 21196 February 6, 1924 - ONG GUAN CAN v. CENTURY INSURANCE CO.

    045 Phil 667



  • G.R. No. 21271 February 7, 1924 - ISIDRO PENSADER, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRA PENSADER, ET AL.

    047 Phil 959


  • G.R. No. 21051 February 7, 1924 - SEE KIONG PHA v. TI BUN LAY

    045 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 21244 February 7, 1924 - MIGUEL VELASCO Y CUARTERONI v. REMEDIOS VISMANOS

    045 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 21074 February 9, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUDA SINGH

    045 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 21127 February 9, 1924 - ALFONSO DEL CASTILLO v. SHANNON RICHMOND

    045 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 21280 February 9, 1924 - VICENTE E. REYES v. HENRY W. ELSER

    045 Phil 685



  • G.R. No. 20832 February 11, 1924 - TOMAS CABIGAO v. PETRONA LIM

    050 Phil 844


  • G.R. No. 21026 February 13, 1924 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. MANUEL ERNESTO GONZALEZ

    045 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 21491 February 15, 1924 - LEONOR VILLGRACIA v. FERNANDO SALAS

    045 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-21119 February 19, 1924 - A. MALUENDA & CO. v. GERTRUDIS V. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    046 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. 20870 February 21, 1924 - HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. JOSE SAJO

    045 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 21106 February 21, 1924 - TIU SIUCO v. SIMEON HABANA

    045 Phil 707

  • G.R. No. 21087 February 23, 1924 - JULIA MILLAN v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA

    045 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. L-21151 February 25, 1924 - RAMON J. FERNANDEZ v. FERNANDO VERGEL DE DIOS, ET AL.

    046 Phil 922

  • G.R. No. 20923 February 25, 1924 - LIM SIENGCO v. LO SENG

    045 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 21017 February 25, 1924 - JOSE YAP SIONG v. DEE TIM

    045 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 21382 February 25, 1924 - HAWAIIAN PHILIPPINE CO. v. JOSE E. HERNAEZ

    045 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 21186 February 27, 1924 - FREDERICK C. FISHER v. WENCESLAO TRINIDAD

    045 Phil 751

  • G.R. Nos. 21168-21170 February 29, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRINIDAD G. DE LARA Y REYES

    045 Phil 754