Oblicon Provision Notebook + Cases

Kristine Confesor

Chapter 1 PRESCRIPTIONS PRESCRIPTION

Concept and Kinds of Prescription

Prescription- acquisition of a right by a lapse of time.

Limitation- actions under the common law; time within which an action must be brought after the right of action has accrued. Mode of acquiring or losing ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law:

1. In the concept of an owner 2. Public

3. Peaceful 4. Uninterrupted 5. Adverse

2 Kinds of Prescription as to acquisition /loss of rights

1) Acquisitive Prescription- acquisition of a right by the lapse of time, also known as adverse possession and usucapcion  Ordinary

 Extraordinary

2) Extinctive Prescription- Loss of right of action by the lapse of time, also known as limitation of actions 2 Kinds of Prescription as to Object/SM

1. Property (real/personal) 2. Rights

Art. 1106 By prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under conditions laid down by law.

In the same way, rights and actions are lost by prescription. Basis of Prescription

Abandonment, Negligence, Carelessness of owners provided with the most perfect titles may be deprived and dispossessed of their properties by usurpers, who, by the lapse of the time specified by law, acquire the same by prescription.

 Sta. Maria: statute of repose whose object is to suppress fraudulent and stale claims from springing up at great distances of time and surprising the parties of their representatives when the facts have become obscure from the lapse of time or the defective memory or death or removal of witnesses.

ACQUISITIVE

PRESCRIPTION PRESCRIPTIONEXTINCTIVE

acquisition of a right by the lapse of time; adverse possession

and usucapcion Loss of a rights and action due to lapse of time; limitation of action Based on the assertion by a usurper of an adverse right for

such a long time, uncontested by the true owner of the right, as to give rise to the presumption that the latter has given up such right in favor of the former.

Based on the probability, born of experience, that the alleged right which accrued in the distant past never existed or has already been extinguished; or if it exists, the inconvenience caused by the lapse of time should be borne by the party negligent in the assertion of his right.

Voluntary return of the property, even if not viewed as a performance of a natural obligation, can be regarded as a tacit renunciation of prescription under 1112.

To protect the diligent and vigilant, not the person who sleeps on his rights

AS A DEFENSE:

plea of ownership is already sufficient to justify proof thereof even if there is no allegation of prescription of action. (ex. Defense that the occupant of property is the absolute owner due to prescription)

AS A DEFENSE: must be expressly relied upon in the pleadings, proved, and established with a certain degree of certainty

Retroactivity of Prescription

Acquisition of ownership or other real rights through prescription is retroactive; once the period is completed, the new owner is considered as having acquired the thing or right from the moment the period began to run.

Doctrine of Stale Demands (LACHES)

- Unreasonable delay in the bringing of a cause of action before the courts of justice

- Failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier

- Negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto either has abandoned it or declined to assert it

- Based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, and the discouragement of stale claims Requisites

1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made and for which the complaint seeks a remedy

2) delay in asserting the complainant’s rights, the complainant having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit 3) Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complaint would assert the right on which he bases his

Kristine Confesor

PRESCRIPTION LACHES

Statute of Limitations

Concerned with the FACT of delay Concerned with the EFFECT of delayDoctrine of Stale Demands Matter of time

Question of inequity of permitting a claim to be enforced, founded on some change in the condition of the property or the relation of the parties

Statutory Not

Law Equity

Fixed Time Not

Applies independently of prescription so that laches has been successfully interposed even if a shorter time had elapsed and prescriptive period has not yet expired

Can bar filing or prosecution of a suit; determined by the ccourts

1107. Persons who are capable of acquiring property or rights by the other legal modes may acquire the same by means of prescription.

Minors and other incapacitated persons may acquire property or rights by prescription, either personally or through their parents, guardians, or legal representatives.

Art. 1108. Prescription, both acquisitive and extinctive, runs against:

(1) Minors and other incapacitated persons who have parents, guardians or other legal representatives; (2) Absentees who have

administrators, either appointed by them before their disappearance, or appointed by thecourts;

(3) Persons living abroad, who have managers or administrators; (4) Juridical persons,

except the State and its subdivisions. Persons who are disqualified from administering their

property have a right to claim damages from their legal representatives whose negligence has been the cause of prescription. Art. 1110 Prescription, acquisitive and extinctive, runs in favor of, or against a married woman.

Capacity for

Prescription-GR: Capacity to acquire property or rights by other legal modes is required for prescription.  Sta. Maria:

Prescription is a mode of acquiring property or rights. The acquisition of a minor who personally acquires property or rights without the assistance of his parents/guardian is annullable or voidable.

 However, when such minor comes of age, he may ratify the acquisition.

 A person of majority age of 18 is already emancipated and is responsible for all acts of civil life, save for exceptions established by existing laws on special cases.

- If discernment is wanting, Minors and Incapacitated Persons may acquire prescription through their: o Parents

o Guardians

o Legal representative NOTES:

***Capacity for possession is required because possession is an element common to all kinds of acquisitive prescription. ***Even if the donation is VOID, it may constitute the legal basis for adverse possession

***Act. No 190 under Code of Civil Procedure provides for the right to bring actions within 3 or 2 years after the minor/incapacitated persons’ disability has been removed.

- Has the effect of giving the incapacitated person the designated period after the removal of the disability within which to bring suit, if said prescription has already expired.

- Extends to all parties who have a joint and inseparable interest with the party under disability. ***No prescription can run against the State and its subdivisions, except with reference to patrimonial property Art. 1109 Prescription does not run between

husband and wife, even though there be a separation of property agreed upon in the marriage settlements or by judicial decree. Neither does prescription run between

parents and children, during the minority or insanity of the latter, and between guardian and ward during the continuance of the guardianship.

Kristine Confesor

- Between H and W

- Parents and Children during minority/insanity - Guardian and Ward during continuance or rel. Except

1. Legal separation (w/I 5 years from occurrence of the cause) 2. Annulment (5 years from the starting point provided by law)

3. Husband’s action Impugning the legitimacy of child’s wife (1,2,3 depending upon the residence of the husband and the place of birth of the child)

4. Alienations made by the husband without the wife’s consent

Art. 1111 Prescription obtained by a co-proprietor or a co-owner shall benefit the others. NB: applies only when property is owned in common because they have the same interest

No Need for Ratification- applies only when the co-owner in adverse possession clearly possesses in representation of the co-ownership. But mere existence of relationship of co-owners will not in itself suffice to give the benefit of prescription by one in favor of all the others. In the latter, ratification is now needed under Art. 532, CC.

- Furthermore, possession must be in the concept of owner in order to ripen into ownership by prescription Art. 1112 Persons with capacity to alienate property may renounce

prescription already obtained, but not the right to prescribe in the future.

Prescription is deemed to have been tacitly renounced when the renunciation results from act which imply the abandonment of the right acquired.

NB:

***Renunciation is Unilateral and does not require the acceptance of the person to be benefited by it.

Tacit Renunciation- where a party acknowledges the correctness of a debt and promises to pay it after the same has prescribed and w/ full knowledge of the prescription, he waives the benefit of prescription.

- Full knowledge and promise to pay beyond Prescribed period - Extension of time to pay

***Advance renunciation is void. Only persons with the capacity to alienate property can renounce prescription already obtained ***Example: D formerly owed C but the debt has already prescribed.

 If Sonia, knowing that the debt has prescribed, nevertheless still acknowledges the existence of the debt and promises to pay for it, there is an implied renunciation of the prescription.

She still has a civil obligation.

 If Sonia, knowing that the debt has prescribed, nevertheless voluntarily pays the debt, she cannot recover what she had paid. This would be a natural obligation.

 If Sonia, not knowing that the debt has prescribed pays it, there is no renunciation of the prescription; Can still recover on the basis of solutio indebiti

Art. 1113 All things which are within the commerce of men are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided. Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription.

1) Subject to the Commerce of Man 2) Patrimonial Property of the State I. Object of prescription; Rules

 Possession is an essential element in prescription

 only things susceptible of being appropriated may be the object of possession (530, CC)  Hence, only things susceptible to appropriation may be acquired through prescription  Therefore the ff cannot be acquired by prescription

o Common things o Intransmissible rights o Outside the commerce of men o Movables acquired through crime

o Lands registered under the Torrens system (Javier v. Concepcion)

o Properties of spouses, parents, and children, wards and guardians, under the restrictions imposed by law (1109) o Property of public dominion

 429 provides The following are property of public dominion

1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and other of similar character

2) Those which belong to the State without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth

 502 adds

1) Rivers and natural beds

Kristine Confesor

4) Lakes and lagoons formed by Nature on public lands and their beds Exception:

 RA 1942 (June 22, 1957) amending PLA or CA141

Sec. 48 of CA 141 provides that citizens therein described occupying lands of public domain or claiming to own any such land or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or complete, may apply to the CFI where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of title under LRA.

o Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of the title except when prevented by war or force majeure. ***deals with judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title until Dec. 31, 1957

Art. 1114 Creditors and all other persons interested in making the prescription effective may avail themselves thereof notwithstanding the express or tacit renunciation by the debtor or proprietor.

 Creditors may plead prescription despite tacit renunciation of right by debtor/proprietor Illustration:

A is indebted to B in the amount of 50k.

C guarantees the said indebtedness and waives his benefit of excussion. This means that should A fail to pay B, B need not exhaust all remedies against A for collection before he could demand payment from C, the guarantor.

In the event that the time within which to pay has already prescribed, but A nevertheless waives the prescription such that B can still collect from him, and should A fail again to pay, thereby prompting B to demand payment from C, the guarantor, the latter can resist payment by invoking that the collection of debt of A has already prescribed. C will not be prejudiced by the act of A in waiving the prescription. OKAY GETS!

Art. 1115 The provisions of the present Title are understood to be without prejudice to what in this Court or in special laws is established with respect to specific cases of prescription

Prescriptive Periods in specific cases. In case of conflict between period provided in this Title and period provided in another portion of Civil Code, the more specific provision will prevail.

Art. 1116 Prescription already running before the effectivity of this Code shall be governed by laws previously in force; but if since the time this Code took effect the entire period herein required for prescription should lapse, the present Code shall be applicable, even though by the former laws a longer period might be required.

TRANSITIONAL RULES FOR PRESCRIPTION

1950 Civil Code took effect Aug. 30, 1950 (transitory provision)

1. If the period of prescription BEGAN and ENDED under the OLD laws, said OLD laws govern 2. If the period of prescription BEGAN under the NEW civil code, the NEW CC governs. 3. If the period began under the OLD law, and continues under NCC, the old law applies.

Exception: Therefore, NCC applies provided a. NEW CC requires shorter period

b. This shorter period has already lapsed since Aug. 1950 1) (if NCC provides for a shorter period, it must apply NCC)

o Thus, if under an old law previous to the effectivity of the 1950 CC, X has 30 years to file a particular suit and by the time CC took effect is only 12 years, he cannot file the case on the 12th _{or even on the 11}th _{year if the 1950 CC only} provides for 10 years as prescriptive period for exactly the same kind of case.

o This is because by the 11 yr or 12th _{year, the prescriptive period of 10 years counted from the effectivity of the 1050} cc has already lapsed.

2) If the prescriptive period under the old law is still running upon the NCC’s effectivity and the remaining balance of such period since the effectivity of NCC is shorter than that provided under the old law, the old prescriptive period will apply. (whichever is shorter)

o If under the old law, the balance of the period is 12 years remaining upon 1950 NCC’s effectivity and the new law provides for a longer period, the old law of 12 years governs.

TITLE V Chapter 2

PRESCRIPTION OF OWNERSHIP AND OTHER REAL RIGHTS

Art. 1117 Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real rights maybe ordinary or extraordinary.

Kristine Confesor

good faith and with just title for the time fixed by law.

REQUISITES FOR ACQUISITIVE

PRESCRIPTION ORDINARY PRESCRIPTION EXTRAORDINARY PRESCRIPTION

Capacity to acquire by prescription 1107>persons who are capable of acquiring property/rights through other legal modes >any person incapacitated w/ legal representatives

Thing capable of acquisition by prescription

1113

All things within the commerce of men

Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character, not object of prescription

Possession of thing under certain conditions

Good faith with just title Concept of an owner

Open, Exclusive, Continuous Possession

Bad faith Concept of owner

Uninterrupted ownership, open exclusive, continuous possession Lapse of time provided by law Movable/Personal (4 years)Immovable (10years) Movable property (8 years)

Immovable property (30 years)

Conversion of Possession- When the possession begins in good faith, but later on is converted to bad faith, extraordinary or ordinary? Three possible solutions:

1. Supervening bad faith erases the former possession in good faith, and extraordinary prescription will run  from the date of the possession in bad faith

2. Prescription will be extraordinary, but the period will be counted  from the time the possession began

3. The prescription will be extraordinary but the possession in good faith shall be computed  in proportion that the period of extraordinary bears to that or ordinary prescription.

NB: the last solution appears to be the most acceptable because it reflects the difference between the 2 kinds of prescription and gives proper value to possession in good faith.

Art. 1118 Possession has to be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted.

Art. 1119 Acts of possessory character executed in virtue of license or by mere tolerance of the owner shall not be available for the purposes of possession.

FOR POSSESSION TO BE VALID

1) Concept of Owner – must be possessed in this manner for a period of time so claim of acquisitive prescription would prosper; not due to license or mere tolerance

***License- positive act of owner in favor of possessor

***Tolerance- passive acquiescence of the owner to acts being performed by another which appear to be contrary to the rights of the former

 Acts pertaining to the concept of an owner (payment of taxes) and continuous possession  Not concept of an owner

o Mere possession with juridical title (unless such title is repudiated), such as being a trustee, usufructuary, lessee, agent, pledge

o That which subsists by mere tolerance or is in virtue of a license, because both of these imply consent on the part of the owner, and thus constitute a recognition by the possessor that somebody else owns the property

o Mere transient, in which case the owner is not divested of the title, but cannot exercise ownership in the meantime 2) Public- acts of enjoyment are executed in such manner as to be manifest or visible to all, especially to the person against whom the

possession is being adversely asserted

3) Peaceful- acquired and maintained without any violence, physical or moral.

4) Uninterrupted- continuous when the possessor has never ceased to manifest with external acts his intention to exercise a right over the thing, which presupposes that he has never in fact ceased to exercise such right.

Art. 1120 Possession is interrupted for the purposes of prescription, naturally or civilly.

How Interrupted 1. Naturally

o Cessation of possession for MORE THAN 1 year o If 1 year or less, counted in favor of prescription 2. Civilly

o Judicial summons Except:

Kristine Confesor

a. VOID for lack of legal solemnities. Hence, if the judicial summons as well as the copy of the complaint have been served by a person not authorized by the court, it shall be deemed as not issued, thereby allowing the possession to run uninterrupted.

b. DESISTANCE by the Plaintiff from the complaint c. ABSOLVED: Possessor/defendant

3. Express Tacit Recognition of Owner’s right Effects of Interruption

 All benefits acquired so far from the possession ceases  When prescription runs again, it shall be a new one

 In suspension, past period is included in the computation (insanity of the child or ward placed under guardianship)

Art. 1121 Possession is naturally interrupted when through any cause it should cease for more than one year.

The old possession is not revived if a new possession should be exercised by the same adverse claimant.

Art. 1122 The natural interruption is for only one year or less, the time elapsed shall be counted in favor of the prescription.

Art.1123 Civil interruption is produced by judicial summons to the possessor.

Art. 1124 Judicial summons shall be deemed not to have been issued and shall not give rise to interruption: If it should be void for lack of legal solemnities; If the plaintiff

should desist from the complaint or should allow the proceedings to lapse;

If the possessor should be absolved from the complaint

In all these cases, the period of interruption shall be counted for the prescription When possession is civilly interrupted?

 It is not the filing of the complaint in court which interrupts

the possession. It is interrupted upon receipt of the possessor of the judicial summons after the filing of the complaint. When the possessor receives the judicial summons and the copy of the complaint, it is only during that time that jurisdiction is acquired by the court of the person of the possessor and it is at that time that possession is interrupted.

Effect of Recovery of Possession;, in case

 natural interruption - Under 1121 & 1122, the old possession loses all its juridical effects, and even if the possession is reacquired, the old possession cannot be tacked to the new possession for purposes of prescription. MUST BEGIN ALL OVER AGAIN

 Civil interruption –if possession is recovered, it can be connected to the time that has elapsed as if it were in fact continuous; the period to be counted for the prescription.

Art. 1125 Any express or tacit recognition which the possessor may make of the owner’s right also interrupts possession.

Recognition by Possessor of owner’s rights – recognition of owner’s right must be made by the possessor or declared by a third person that the property does not belong to the possessor and it is authorized and ratified by the possessor.

Art. 1126 Against a title recorded in the Registry of Property, ordinary prescription of ownership or real rights shall not take place to the prejudice of a third person, except in virtue of another title also recorded; and the time shall begin to run from the recording of the latter. As to lands registered under the Land Registration Act, the provisions of that special law shall govern.

Recorded Titles as to Third Persons;

NB: the owner of the thing at the beginning of the prescriptive period is not considered as a third person.

- But those who acquire their right subsequently, relying on the registration of ownership in the Registry, must be considered as third persons, and they cannot be prejudiced by the period of possession prior to the date of their acquisition.

Requisites for 3rd _Persons

1. That the acquisition is by onerous title;

2. Acquisition is from one who, according to the Registry, can transmit the title; 3. That the acquisition is registered;

Kristine Confesor

- one who acquires with knowledge that prescription is running or has run with respect to the tenement, cannot be afforded the protection incident to registration.

- While the registered owner who executed the title which is the basis for prescription, is not considered a third person, he is however regarded as a third person with respect to a title executed by another who is not the registered owner.

- When the title of a first transferee is not registered, a subsequent transferee of a real right over the things is considered as a third person if his title is recorded.

- The time for prescription to the prejudice of those who are not considered as third persons with recorded titles, shall be counted from the commencement of the possession under title of ownership, although the title by virtue of which it is held may not have been registered.

Registered Lands

- Adverse possession may not be allowed to defeat the owner’s right to possession of land registered under Torrens system (otherwise, loss of land by prescription would be indirectly approved, in violation of LRA)

- Neither can prescription be allowed against the registered owner’s hereditary successors because the latter merely step into the shoes of a decedent and are merely the continuation of the personality of their predecessor in interest.

Art. 1127 The good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that

the person from whom he received the thing was the owner thereof, and

could transmit his ownership.

Art. 1128 The conditions of good faith required for possession in Articles 526, 527, 528, and 529 of this Code are likewise necessary for the determination of good faith in the prescription of ownership and other real rights.

Defect is cured when:

 Well-founded Belief that the grantor is the owner with the right to convey  Presumed, unless the contrary is shown

 Good faith must not only exist at the beginning of the possession, but throughout the entire period required for prescription.  If VOID, good faith/bad faith will be then immaterial

 If VOIDABLE, knowledge of the grantee of such defect does not deprive him of good faith for purposes of prescription (because he can consider that the defect may not be set up and the title would thereby be invalidated)

Art. 1129 For the purposes of prescription, there is just title when the adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right. Art. 1130 The title for prescription must be true and valid

Art. 1131 For purposes of prescription, just title must be proved; it is never presumed.

Title for Prescription

1) Just – an act which has for its purpose the transmission of ownership, and which would have been actually transferred ownership if the grantor had been the owner (vice defect cured by prescription)

 Ex. Sale with delivery, exchange, donation, succession, and dation in payment. 

Does not constitute a Title

Ex. Lease of things, loan, deposit, and all contracts which do not transmit property rights; and

Partition, compromise and court decision, which are all declaratory property rights but do not transmit them. 2) True – title must exist actually, and not merely in the mind of possessor.

 False title- one which does not exist but is believed by the possessor to exist, may or may not be sufficient. o May be based on error in fact/law

o Mistake of fact-

 If act of a 3rd _{person, the title is sufficient for prescription}  If act of possessor himself, not sufficient

o Mistake of law

 If validity of the act, title is not adequate (ex. Belief that insane person can validly alienate)

 If Mistake in application of law, adequate title (ex. If he did not know about insanity of owner, title is sufficient)

 Revocable title- one which the transferor has made a reservation by virtue of which the right of the possessor may disappear, cannot serve as a basis for prescription; Once the reservation becomes ineffective, the period that has run can be counter for the prescription (ex. A sale w/ right to repurchase)

3) Valid – validity of the title means that it should be sufficient to transmit the right if the grantor had been the owner. - VOID title: insufficient

Kristine Confesor

- Resolutory Condition: begins at once, w/o prejudice to the effect of the resolution by the condition which may later happen 4) Proved – requirement of just title must be proved for purposes of prescription (exception to the GR in 541, CC which provides for a

presumption of a just title for every possessor in the concept of owner). Art. 1132 The ownership of movables prescribes through uninterrupted possession for 4years, in good faith.

The ownership of personal property also prescribes through uninterrupted possession of 8years, without need of any other condition. With regard to the right of the owner to recover personal property lost or of which he has been illegally deprived, as well as with respect to movables acquired in public sale, fair, or market, or from a merchant’s store the provisions of articles 559 and 1505 of this Code shall be observed.

Art. 1133 Movables possessed through a crime can never be acquired through prescription by the offender.

Art. 1134 Ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription through possession of 10years.

Art. 1135 In case the adverse claimant possesses by mistake an area greater, or less, than that expressed in his title, prescription shall be based on the possession

Constructive Possession- possession upon which prescription is based, is not limited to the area actually occupied, but covers the area over which the possession is asserted.

Therefore, the area referred to by the present article as possessed by mistake, must be deemed to include not only that actually and physically occupied but also everything under constructive possession.

 Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on every sqm of the land (Ramos v. Dir.)  Possession prevails over title. If there is NO title, article cannot apply

 Possession must be by MISTAKE

Art. 1136 Possession in wartime, when the civil courts are not open, shall not be counted in favor of the adverse claimant.

 Possession of adverse claimant during wartime cannot be counted in favor of prescription

Art. 1137 Ownership and other real rights over immovable also prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for 30 years, without need of title or of good faith.

When title is VOID. Even when the title of the possessor is void, such as an oral donation of real property, he may acquire ownership by prescription under this article.

Art. 1138 In the computation of time necessary for prescription, the following rules shall be observed.

1) The present possessor may complete the period necessary for prescription by tacking his possession to that of his grantor or predecessor in interest;

2) It is presumed that the present possessor who was also the possessor at a previous time, has continued to be in possession during the intervening time, unless there is proof to the contrary; presumption of continuity

3) The first day shall be excluded and the last day included.

Tacking Possession- in order that there can be tacking of possession , present possessor must have obtained his possession from the previous possessor with privity between them.

 A deed does not in itself create a privity  Nor bare taking possession of the land

 Tacking is only possible only when there is a succession of rights between the predecessor and the successor. A mere usurper cannot invoke the possession of any previous possessor.

Different Character of Possession Predecessor: Goodfaith

Kristine Confesor

Tacking possession permitted; possession in good faith should be computed in the proportion that the period of extraordinary prescription bears to that of ordinary prescription.

Predecessor: Bad Faith Successor: Good Faith

Ordinary Prescription

Possession of the Predecessor cannot be counted

Period of Bad Faith cannot be counted for ordinary prescription.

Ratio: Principle in 534: One who succeeds by hereditary title shall not suffer the consequences of the wrongful possession of the decedent, if it is not shown that he was aware of the flaws affecting it;

***but the effects of possession in good faith shall not benefit him except from the date of death of the decedent. The same applies to transfers of possession by acts inter vivos.

ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION

Movables ORDINARY : 4 years

EXTRAORDINARY: 8 years

Immovable ORDINARY: 10 years

EXTRAORDINARY: 30 years Personal

(ie. Shares of stock) 8 years; No condition

Personal

(illegally deprived) Movables

(acquired in public sale, fair, market, merchant’s store)

559 movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title 1505

Goods sold by 3rd _{person not authorized by the owner, buyer acquires no better title} than the seller had

Chapter 3

PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS

Abandonment of Right of Action (Extinction) PERIOD

In Years Prescription of ACTION

30 Immovable property

10

Written contract Obligation created by law

Judgment Mortgage action

8 Movables

6 Oral contract

Quasi-contract

5 Actions not fixed by law

4 Injury to the rights of the plaintiff_Quasi-delict 1

Forcible entry Detainer Defamation

Statutes of Limitations- acts limiting the time within which actions shall be brought.

- Does not confer any right of action, but are enacted to restrict the period within which the right, otherwise unlimited, might be asserted.

- Not matters of substantive right, but are available only as defenses.

- Founded in the general experience of mankind that claims which are valid are not usually allowed to remain neglected, and that the lapse of years without any attempt to enforce a demand creates a presumption against its original validity or that it has ceased to exist.

- PURPOSE: to protect the diligent and vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights Art. 1139 Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.

- Lapse of time has the effect of extinguishing the action

- There is no extinctive prescription unless the period provided by law expires

- Mere delay in the enforcement of claim does not result in any reduction or loss of right, unless the full period required by law for prescription has expired

Prescription as a defense must be pleaded by the debtor.

- Bar of statute of limitations must be pleaded in the answer and proven with the same degree of certainty by which any essential allegation in the pleadings is established.

Kristine Confesor

time the possession thereof is lost, unless the possessor has acquired the ownership by prescription for a less period, according to Art. 1132, and without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 559, 1505, and 1133.

 Article 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of the same

 Article 1505. Subject to the provisions of this Title, where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and who does not sell them under authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller’s authority to sell.

Nothing in this Title, however, shall affect:

(1) The provisions of any factors’ acts, recording laws, or any other provisions of law enabling the apparent owner of good to dispose of them as if he were the true owner thereof;

(2) The validity of any contract of sale under statutory power of sale or under the order of a court of competent jurisdiction;

(3) Purchases made in a merchant’s store, or in fairs, or markets, in accordance with the Code of Commerce and special laws.

Art. 1141 Real actions over immovable prescribe after 30 years

This provision is without prejudice to what is established

for the acquisition of ownership and other real rights by prescription.

Action affecting Realty- while an action for reformation of instrument, such as a contract of sale with pacto de retro alleged to be merely an equitable mortgage, is an action based upon a written contract which must be brought within 10 years from the time the right of action accrues (1144,CC), where, however, the accrual of such right could not be established, it is more logical to apply 1141, CC because in reality the action seeks to reassert one’s title of ownership over the real property, not to recover the same.

Art. 1142 A mortgage action prescribes after 10 years

 A mortgage is an accessory contract. It is constituted to secure a debt so that if the debtor fails to pay the principal obligation, the creditor can foreclose on the mortgage by selling the same in a public sale or bidding and the proceeds thereof are used to pay off the principal debt and interest if any. If there is any deficiency, the creditor can still go against the principal debtor to collect such deficiency.

 Reckoning point: upon judicial/extrajudicial foreclosure of property

Not imprescriptible. The fact that mortgage is registered does not make the action to foreclose it imprescriptible.

Effects on Interest- it is not possible to separate legally the interest or any part thereof from the principal itself; hence, if the action to recover the mortgage debt itself has prescribed, the action to recover the interest must also be prescribed.

Art. 1143 The following rights, among others specified elsewhere in this Code, are not extinguished by prescription:

1) The demand a right of way, regulated in Art. 649 2) To bring an action to abate a public or private nuisance Between Co-owners and Co-heirs

- Under 494, CC, no prescription shall run in favor of a owner or heirs so long as he expressly/impliedly recognize the co-ownership. The possession of each of the co-owners or co-heirs is in the nature of a subsisting trust and considered to be in the name of the others.

The rule on imprescriptibility, however, applies only so long as it is admitted/presumed that the co-ownership exists. It cannot be invoke when one of the co-owners or co-heirs has possessed the property as exclusive owner for a period sufficient to acquire the property by prescription.

Other actions imprescriptible”  Action by the gov’t or its entity  Action for mandamus

 Action to enforce an express trust, as long as the trustee does not repudiate it  Action to declare a contract null and void

 Action to quiet a title initiated by the person having possession of property  Action to partition a property among his co-heirs

 Right to demand support (present and future) except in arrears

 Right of applicant-purchaser for registered land to ask for the writ of possession Art. 1144 The following actions must be brought within 10 years from

the time the right of action accrues: 1) Upon a written contract;

2) Upon an obligation created by law; 3) Upon a judgment

Reckoning point of Accrual of Right of Actions

1) A right in favor of plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or created 2) Obligation on the part of such defendant to respect such right

Kristine Confesor

Art. 1145 The following actions must be commenced within 6 years 1) Upon an Oral contract;

2) Upon a Quasi-contract

Art. 1146 The following actions must be instituted within 4 years 1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;

2) Upon a quasi-delict

Injury Rights- 1yr period fixed by RoC within which to file a petition for quo warranto should be filed, counted from the date of ouster, does not apply to a case where the plaintiff is separated from his employment of unjustifiable causes. Such unjustified separation from employment is an injury to the rights of the plaintiff and the action may be brought within 4 years under this Article.

Art. 1147 The following actions must be filed within 1year 1) For forcible entry and detainer;

2) For defamation

Art. 1148 The limitations of action mentioned in 1140-1142, and 1114 to 1147 are without prejudice to those specified in other parts of this code, in the Code of Commerce, and in special laws.

Art. 1149 All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought within

5 years from the time the right of action accrues

Right to collect Taxes- limitations here are not presumed in the absence of clear legislation to the contrary, and where the government has not by express statutory provision provided a limitation upon its right to assess unpaid taxes, such right is imprescriptible.

Art. 1150 The time for prescription of all kinds of actions, when there is no special provision which ordains otherwise, shall be counted from the day they may be brought

Legal possibility of bringing the action which determines the starting point for the computation of the period. Essential Elements of a good cause of Action

1. Existence of Legal right of Plaintiff 2. Corresponding legal duty of defendant

3. Violation or breach of that right/duty w/ consequential injury or damage to the plaintiff, for which he may maintain an action for appropriate relief.

NB:

1) When windows were opened in the bldg. of a neighbor in violation of law, the period of prescription for the action to close the same must be counted from the day they were opened.

2) Payment upon receipt of an inheritance by the debtor, prescription begins to run from the date of such receipt (because when the obligation is subject to a suspensive condition, prescription runs only from the happening of the condition)

3) Obligations without date of maturity, or a note is payable on demand, prescription begins to run from the date of the not e or obligation and not from demand

4) Action based on fraud or deceit, the period of prescription will begin to run on the date of discovery of the fraud or deceit. 5) In Quasi-delict, the prescriptive period starts from the day the quasi-delict occurred or was committed.

6) In an action for Partition or Recoveyance based on implied or constructive trusts, the time for prescription begins to run from the date of issuance of original certificate of title because registration of an instrument in the office of the RiD constitutes

constructive notice to the whole world.

Obligations and Interest- runs only from the last payment of interest rule, is applicable only to cases where the principal debt is already due. It will cause to commence only after the maturity of the debt.

Art. 1152 The period for prescription of actions to demand the fulfillment of obligations declared by a judgment commences from the time the judgment became final

Final judgment- upon the expiration of the period for appeal; thereafter, prescription begins to run (RTC); but in CA or SC, the true judgment is that entered b the clerk of Court pursuant to the dispositive portion of its decision, and the period of such prescription therefore is computed from the date such judgment is entered.

Art. 1153 The period for prescription of actions to demand accounting runs from the day the persons who should render the same cease in their functions.

The period for the action arising from the result of the accounting runs from the date when said result was recognized by agreement of the interested parties

Art. 1151 the time for prescription of actions which have for their object the

enforcement of obligations to pay principal with interest or annuity runs from the last payment of the annuity or of the interest.

Kristine Confesor

Current accounts: There is a distinction as to the time when the period of prescription begins to run in mutual current accounts and in simple current open accounts. In mutual, statute of limitations does not begin on the date of the last item; while in simple, the statute begins to run from the date of each particular item.

Art. 1154 The period during which the oblige was prevented by a fortuitous event from enforcing his right is not reckoned against him Art. 1155 The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgement of the debt by the debtor.

INTERRUPTION OF PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION 1) Filed before the court (legal commencement) 2) Written extrajudicial demand by creditors 3) Written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor

NB: No suspension – although an action is started within the prescriptive period, if the plaintiff desists in its prosecution or judgment is unconditionally stayed for one year or another, the running of the period of limitations is not suspended.

***interruption lasts during the pendency of the action and ends upon the dismissal of the case where it now runs anew CAUSES NOT INTERRUPTING

1) Death of the debtor does not interrupt the running of the statute of limitations, because the creditor has at his disposal appropriate means for the prosecution of an action to enforce the collection of his claim

2) Transfer of the right to another person

3) Institution of a criminal action cannot have the effect of interrupting the institution of a civil action based on quasi-delict 4) An order to stay execution of a judgment does not suspend the running of prescription against it

5) Confinement in jail

 BENTIR V. LEANDA (Reformation of Instrument)

FACTS: On May 15, 1992, RC (Lessee) filed against petitioners Bentir (lessor) and spouses Pormada a complaint for reformation of instrument, specific performance, annulment of conditional sale and damages with prayer for writ of injunction. RC alleged that he entered into a contract of lease of a parcel of land with Bentir for a period of twenty (20) years starting May 5, 1968 and was extended for another four (4) years or until May 31, 1992. Bentir sold the leased premises which RC questioned alleging that it had a right of first refusal and now seeking the reformation of the expired contract of lease. It further noted that its lawyer inadvertently omitted to incorporate in the contract of lease executed in 1968, which gave RC has the right to equal the highest offer. Bentir and spouses Pormada raised as defense the lease contract as not a ground for reformation as well as laches for not bringing the case for reformation of the lease contract within the prescriptive period of ten (10) years from its execution.

Respondent Judge Mateo M. Leanda reversed the lower court’s order dismissing the action of RC. “To the mind of this Court, the dismissal order adverted to above, was obviously premature and precipitate, thus resulting denial upon the right of plaintiff that procedural due process. The other remaining four (4) causes of action of the complaint must have been deliberated upon before that court acted hastily in dismissing this case.”

ISSUE: W/N complaint for reformation of instrument has prescribed. Yes. RULING: (10 years from 1968 is 1978, action made on 1992, 24 yrs)

The remedy for reformation of instrument is grounded on the principle of equity where, in order to express the true intention of the contracting parties, an instrument already executed is allowed by law to be reformed. The right of reformation is necessarily an invasion or limitation of the parol evidence rule since, when writing is reformed, the result is that an oral agreement is by court decree made legally effective. Consequently, the courts, as the agencies authorized by law to exercise the power to reform an instrument, must necessarily exercise that power sparingly and with great caution and zealous care subject to limitations as may be provided by law. A suit for reformation of an instrument may be barred by lapse of time. The prescriptive period for actions based upon a written contract and for reformation of an instrument is ten (10) years under Article 1144 of the Civil Code.

PURPOSE: intended to suppress stale and fraudulent claims arising from transactions like the one at bar which facts had become so obscure from the lapse of time or defective memory. In the case at bar, RC had ten (10) years from 1968, the time when the contract of lease was executed, to file an action for reformation. Sadly, it did so only on May 15, 1992 or twenty-four (24) years after the cause of action accrued, hence, its cause of action has become stale, hence, time-barred.

Art. 1670 would not apply as this provision speaks of an implied new lease (tacita reconduccion) where at the end of the contract, the lessee continues to enjoy the thing leased "with the acquiescence of the lessor", so that the duration of the lease is "not for the period of the original contract, but for the time established in Article 1682 and 1687." In other words, if the extended period of lease was expressly agreed upon by the parties, then the term should be exactly what the parties stipulated, not more, not less.

Even if the supposed 4-year extended lease be considered as an implied new lease under Art. 1670, "the other terms of the original contract" contemplated in said provision are only those terms which are germane to the lessee's right of continued enjoyment of the property leased. 15

RECKONING POINT:

The prescriptive period of ten (10) years provided for in Art. 1144 16 _{applies by operation of law, not by the will of the parties. Therefore,} the right of action for reformation accrued from the date of execution of the contract of lease in 1968.

Kristine Confesor

Action will still not prosper. 

Under Section 1, Rule 64 of the New RoC, 17

an action for the reformation of an instrument is instituted as a special civil action for declaratory relief, an action to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or compliance therewith, and not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach thereof, it may be entertained only before the breach or violation of the law or contract to which it refers. 18

Here, RC brought the present action for reformation after an alleged breach or violation of the contract was already committed by petitioner Bentir. Consequently, the remedy of reformation no longer lies. Petition is GRANTED. CA decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  AINZA vs. SPOUSES PADUA

Ainza (Concepcion) filed a complaint for partition of real property, annulment of titles against Spouses Eugenia Padua who caused a subdivision of the lot into three under their names w/o her consent. She bought a portion of the undivided lot on 1987 from her daughter and husband for 100k. No Deed of Absolute Sale was executed to evidence the transaction, but cash payment was received by the Paduas, and ownership was transferred to Concepcion through physical delivery to her attorney-in-fact and daughter, (Natividad) whom she allowed to occupy the premises, and make improvements on the unfinished building. However, the Paduas caused the subdivision of the property without her consent into three portions and registered it in their names under in violation of the restrictions annotated at the back of the title. Antonio averred that he bought the property in 1980 and introduced improvements thereon. An ejectment suit against Natividad was filed by Antonio for resisting to vacate the premises. Concepcion, represented by Natividad, also filed on May 4, 1999 a civil case for partition of real property and annulment of titles with damages. his wife, Eugenia, admitted that Concepcion offered to buy one third (1/3) of the property who gave her small amounts over several years which totaled P100,000.00 by 1987 and for which she signed a receipt.

RTC upheld the sale between Eugenia and Concepcion.

 the sale was consummated when both contracting parties complied with their respective obligations. Eugenia transferred possession by delivering the property to Concepcion who in turn paid the purchase price.

 Statute of Frauds was not violated by the transfer of the property because a fully executed contract does not fall within its coverage.

CA reversed the decision of the TC and declared the sale null and void.

 Article 124 of the FC, since the subject property is conjugal, the written consent of Antonio must be obtained for the sale to be valid. It also ordered the spouses Padua to return the amount of P100,000.00 to petitioners plus interest.6

ISSUE: Is there a valid contract of sale between Eugenia and Concepcion? Yes. Has Antonio’s action to annul the sale prescribed? Yes.

RULING:

(Oral Contract done without the consent of the husband, annullable. Six years from 1987 is 1993.) Antonio’s right to file an action to annul the sale has been extinguished by prescription.

 A contract of sale is perfected by mere consent, upon a meeting of the minds on the offer and the acceptance thereof based on subject matter, price and terms of payment.7

In this case, there was a perfected contract of sale between Eugenia and Concepcion. The records show that Eugenia offered to sell a portion of the property to Concepcion, who accepted the offer and agreed to pay 100k as consideration. The contract of sale was consummated when both parties fully complied with their respective obligations. Eugenia delivered the property to Concepcion, who in turn, paid Eugenia the price of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), as evidenced by the receipt which reads:

The verbal contract of sale between Eugenia and Concepcion did not violate the provisions of the Statute of Frauds that a contract for the sale of real property shall be unenforceable unless the contract or some note or memorandum of the sale is in writing and subscribed by the party charged or his agent.9

As in this case When a verbal contract has been completed, executed or partially consummated as evidenced by the receipt signed by Eugenia. Hence, its enforceability will not be barred by the Statute of Frauds, which applies only to an executory agreement.10 _{Thus, where one party has performed his obligation, oral evidence will be admitted to prove the agreement.}11

The contract of sale between Eugenia and Concepcion being an oral contract, the action to annul the same must be commenced within six years from the time the right of action accrued.

Eugenia sold the property in April 1987 hence Antonio should have asked the courts to annul the sale on or before April 1993 . No action was commenced by Antonio to annul the sale, hence his right to seek its annulment was extinguished by prescription.

Even assuming that the ten (10)-year prescriptive period under Art. 173 should apply, Antonio is still barred from instituting an action to annul the sale because since April 1987, more than ten (10) years had already lapsed without any such action being filed.

In sum, the sale of the conjugal property by Eugenia without the consent of her husband is voidable. It is binding unless annulled. Antonio failed to exercise his right to ask for the annulment within the prescribed period, hence, he is now barred from questioning the validity of the sale between his wife and Concepcion.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

 ABALOS vs.HEIRS OF VICENTE TORIO,

FACTS: HT filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages against Abalos (Jaime) and spouses Salazar on 1996. HT alleged that it was only through HT’s tolerance , that Jaime and the Spouses Salazar were allowed to stay and build their respective houses on the subject parcel of land. In 1985, HT asked them to vacate the subject lot, but they refused to heed the demand forcing respondents to file the complaint. Jaime Abalos and the Spouses Salazar raised acquisitive prescription as a defense contending that their predecessors-in-interest had been in actual, continuous and peaceful possession of the subject lot as owners since time immemorial; defendants are faithfully and religiously paying real property taxes on the disputed lot as evidenced by Real Property

Kristine Confesor

ISSUE: whether petitioners possess the subject property as owners, or whether they occupy the same by mere tolerance of respondents. MERE TOLERANCE.

RULING: Abalos and Spouses Salazar’s possession did not ripen into ownership, because they failed to meet the required statutory period of extraordinary prescription.

Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real rights may be ordinary or extraordinary . Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title for ten (10) years. Without good faith and just title, acquisitive prescription can only be extraordinary in character which requires uninterrupted adverse possession for thirty (30) years.

Possession "in good faith" consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom the thing is received has been the owner thereof, and could transmit his ownership.There is "just title" when the adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right.

In the instant case, it is clear that during their possession of the property in question, Abalos and spouses Salazar acknowledged ownership thereof by the immediate predecessor-in-interest Vicente Torio. Petitioners' possession could not be deemed as possession in good faith as to enable them to acquire the subject land by ordinary prescription.

 Tax Declaration acknowledged the ownership of Vicente Torio. TD in the name of Jaime for the year 1984 wherein it contains a statement admitting that Jaime's house was built on the land of

 It was by mere tolerance of Heirs of Torio and Vicente and Acts of possessory character executed due to license or by mere tolerance of the owner are inadequate for purposes of acquisitive prescription.

 Possession, to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right, must be en concepto de dueño, or, to use the common law equivalent of the term, that possession should be adverse, if not, such possessory acts, no matter how long, do not start the running of the period of prescription.

Even if adverse possession, still below 30 years.

 as evidenced by their declaration of the same for tax purposes under the names of their predecessors-in-interest, their possession still falls short of the required period of thirty (30) years in cases of extraordinary acquisitive prescription which was only made starting 1974. Reckoned from such date, the thirty-year period was completed in 2004.

 However, herein respondents' complaint was filed in 1996, effectively interrupting petitioners' possession upon service of summons on them.Thus, petitioners’ possession also did not ripen into ownership, because they failed to meet the required statutory period of extraordinary prescription.

 This Court has held that the evidence relative to the possession upon which the alleged prescription is based, must be clear, complete and conclusive in order to establish the prescription. In the present case, the Court finds no error on the part of the CA in holding that petitioners

o failed to present competent evidence to prove their alleged good faith in neither possessing the subject lot nor their adverse claim thereon.

o Instead, the records would show that petitioners' possession was by mere tolerance of respondents and their predecessors-in-interest.

due execution and authenticity of the deed of sale upon which respondents anchor their ownership were not proven,  Settled is the rule that points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court

need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court.26 _{They cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. To}

allow this would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.27

Even granting that the issue of due execution and authenticity was properly raised, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the CA, to wit:

x x x x

Based on the foregoing, respondents [Jaime Abalos and the Spouses Felix and Consuelo Salazar] have not inherited the disputed land because the same was shown to have already been validly sold to Marcos Torio, who, thereupon, assigned the same to his son Vicente, the father of petitioners [herein respondents]. A valid sale was amply established and the said validity subsists because the deed evidencing the same was duly notarized.

There is no doubt that the deed of sale was duly acknowledged before a notary public. As a notarized document, it has in its favor the presumption of regularity and it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It is admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.28

 MERCADO vs. ESPINOCILLA,

FACTS: Doroteo Espinocilla owned a parcel of land in Sorsogon. After he died, his 5 children, Salvacion, Aspren, Isabel, Macario, and Dionisia divided the lot equally among themselves. Later, Dionisia died without issue ahead of her 4 siblings, and Macario took possession of Dionisia’s share. In an affidavit of transfer of real property4 _{dated November 1, 1948, Macario claimed that Dionisia} had donated her share to him in May 1945.

Macario and his daughters Betty and Saida sold5_{to his son Roger Espinocilla on 1977. Roger’s wife Belen and son Ferdinand are} respondents in this case.

 Roger Espinocilla sold6 _{114 sq. m. to Caridad Atienza on March 8, 1985}  Belen Espinocilla occupies 109 sq. m.,

 Caridad Atienza occupies 120 sq. m.,  Caroline Yu occupies 209 sq. m., and

 Celerino Mercado, petitioner, Salvacion's son, occupies 132 sq. m.7

C. Mercado, son of Salvacion sued the Espinocillas and now claims that he is entitled to a total of 171 Sq. m recover two portions:  He is entitled to own and possess 171 sq. m. of Lot No. 552, having inherited from his mother Salvacion 142.5 sq. m and

bought from his aunt Aspren 28.5 sq. m.