December 1960 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > December 1960 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-14219 December 29, 1960 - MARIANO G. SISON v. FELICIANO MAZA
110 Phil 433:
110 Phil 433:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-14219. December 29, 1960.]
MARIANO G. SISON, plaintiff and appellant, v. FELICIANO MAZA, defendant and appellee.
Antonio Bengzon, Jr. and Carlos P. Puzon for Appellant.
Pedro P. Tuason and Santiago S. Bernal for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
LIMITATION OF ACTION; RECONVEYANCE; TEN YEARS FROM ACCRUAL OF CAUSE OF ACTION. — It appears that FM caused to be surveyed a parcel of land comprising an area of 9 hectares, 83 ares and 99 centares of which about two hectares on the west of the parcel of land belongs to MS; that on 20 December 1937 M.S. and FM executed a document whereby the latter acknowledged that two hectares on the south had been erroneously comprised, in the survey, recognized the former’s right and ownership thereto and promised to have the plan amended to exclude the two hectares therefrom. Having discovered that, through fraud, deceit and misrepresentation, in May, 1958 FM illegally and in bad faith had secured in his name a free patent title (Original Certificate of Title No. 2626). MS commended suit to compel FM to reconvey the two hectares of land. FM moved for the dismissal of the suit, on the ground, among others, that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court dismissed MS’s suit. He appealed, Held: Under Sec. 40, Act No. 190, "An action for recovery of title to, or possession of, real property or an interest therein, can only brought within ten years after the cause of such action accrues." From 20 December 1937, the date of the acknowledgment, to 21 May 1958 when the suit for reconveyance was instituted, almost twenty-one years already had elapsed. The statute of limitation bars his action.
D E C I S I O N
PADILLA, J.:
On 21 May 1958, in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan the plaintiff brought an action to compel the defendant to reconvey two hectares on the west of a parcel of land described in the complaint, damages and costs. In support of his prayer he claims and avers that sometime in 1937, the defendant caused to be surveyed a parcel of land situate in Barrio Salomague, municipality of Bugallon, province of Pangasinan, comprising an area of 9 hectares, 83 ares and 99 centares, bounded on the north by the property of Francisco Maza y Madrid; on the east by the property of victor Espiritu; on the south by the property of Jose Corpus; and on the west by the property of Victor Espiritu (plan Psu-76190); that about two hectares on the west of the parcel of land, with an approximate assessed value of P200, belongs to him and has always been in his possession; that on 20 December 1937 he and the defendant executed a document whereby the latter acknowledged that said two hectares were erroneously comprised in the survey, recognized the former’s right and ownership thereto, and promised to have plan Psu-76190 amended to exclude the two hectares therefrom; and that sometime in May 1958 he discovered that through fraud, deceit and misrepresentation, illegally and in bad faith, the defendant had secured in his name a free patent title (original certificate of title No. 2626, issued by the Registrar of Deeds in and for the province of Pangasinan) comprising the whole parcel of land delimited in plan Psu- 76190. Upon the foregoing averments he prays that after hearing, judgment be rendered ordering the defendant to execute the corresponding and necessary deed or document conveying unto him the two hectares on the western part of the parcel of land delimited in Plan Psu-76190, to pay him the sum of P500 as damages and the costs of the suit, and granting him other just and equitable relief.
On 5 June 1958 the defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the defendant and the subject matter of the action, and that the plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.
On 9 June 1958 the plaintiff filed an objection thereto.
On 24 June 1958 the Court entered an order dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff has appealed.
The Court correctly dismissed the appellant’s complaint on the ground that his cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. Section 40, Act No. 190 1 provides: "An action for recovery of title to, or possession of, real property or an interest therein, can only be brought within ten years after the cause of such action accrues." On 9 November 1937, the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, by authority of the President of the Philippines, issued a free patent to the appellee comprising the entire parcel of land described in the free patent and original certificate of title No. 2626 and delimited in the plan Psu-76190 (Annex I). The document embodying the agreement by and between the appellant and the appellee whereby the latter acknowledged the former to be the owner of two hectares on the south of the parcel of land belonging to the appellee, the common boundary being a straight line from east to west, was executed on 29 December 1937 (Annex A). From this date to 21 May 1958, when the appellant brought the action in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, almost twenty-one years already had elapsed. The statute of limitation bars his action. The parcel of land with an area of two hectares claimed by the appellant to belong to him lies not on the west but on the south of the appellee’s parcel of land, as may be inferred from situation or location thereof described in the document marked Annex A.
The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.
Paras, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutiérrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
On 5 June 1958 the defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the defendant and the subject matter of the action, and that the plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.
On 9 June 1958 the plaintiff filed an objection thereto.
On 24 June 1958 the Court entered an order dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff has appealed.
The Court correctly dismissed the appellant’s complaint on the ground that his cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. Section 40, Act No. 190 1 provides: "An action for recovery of title to, or possession of, real property or an interest therein, can only be brought within ten years after the cause of such action accrues." On 9 November 1937, the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, by authority of the President of the Philippines, issued a free patent to the appellee comprising the entire parcel of land described in the free patent and original certificate of title No. 2626 and delimited in the plan Psu-76190 (Annex I). The document embodying the agreement by and between the appellant and the appellee whereby the latter acknowledged the former to be the owner of two hectares on the south of the parcel of land belonging to the appellee, the common boundary being a straight line from east to west, was executed on 29 December 1937 (Annex A). From this date to 21 May 1958, when the appellant brought the action in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, almost twenty-one years already had elapsed. The statute of limitation bars his action. The parcel of land with an area of two hectares claimed by the appellant to belong to him lies not on the west but on the south of the appellee’s parcel of land, as may be inferred from situation or location thereof described in the document marked Annex A.
The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.
Paras, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutiérrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Section 40, Act No. 190, and not the provisions of the new Civil Code, which took effect on 30 August 1950 (Lara v. del Rosario, 94 Phil., 778; 50 Off. Gaz., 1975; Casabar v. Cruz, G. R. No. L-6882, 29 December 1954; Velayo v. Shell Co. of P.I. Ltd., 100 Phil., 186; 54 Off. Gaz., 65; Estayo v. de Guzman, 104 Phil., 1038; 55 Off. Gaz., 7653; Altomonte v. Philippine-American Drug Co., 106 Phil., 137,) is the law applicable, in view of the provisions of articles 1116 and 2252 of the new Civil Code.
