This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-02-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| (3) Upon a judgment. Since an implied trust is an obligation created by law (specifically, in this case, by Article 1456 of the New Civil Code), then respondents had 10 years within which to bring an action for reconveyance of their shares in Maximino's properties. The next question now is when should the ten-year prescriptive period be reckoned from. The general rule is that an action for reconveyance of real property based on implied trust prescribes ten years from registration and/or issuance of the title to the property,[26] not only because registration under the Torrens system is a constructive notice of title,[27] but also because by registering the disputed properties exclusively in her name, Donata had already unequivocally repudiated any other claim to the same. | |||||
|
2006-02-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Truly, nobody can dispose of that which does not belong to him.[13] Anent Margarita's testimony that Dominga told her that the respondents sent her (Dominga) money to buy the subject property, it cannot be categorized as hearsay evidence. Margarita's testimony was not presented to prove the truth thereof, but only to establish the fact that Dominga narrated to Margarita the source of the funds used in the purchase of the subject property.[14] What was sought to be admitted in evidence, and what was actually admitted in evidence, was the fact that the statement was made by Dominga to Margarita, not necessarily that the matters stated by her were true. The said utterance is in the nature of an independently relevant statement which may be admitted in evidence as such, but not necessarily to prove the truth thereof.[15] | |||||