Lawyerly

GR No. 161360

2011-10-19

ESTRELLA TIONGCO YARED SUBSTITUTED BY CARMEN M. TIONGCO v. JOSE B. TIONGCO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In Alfredo v. Borras,[31] the Court ruled that prescription does not run against the plaintiff in actual possession of the disputed land because such plaintiff has a right to wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is questioned before initiating an action to vindicate his right. His undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his title. The Court held that where the plaintiff in an action for reconveyance remains in possession of the subject land, the action for reconveyance becomes in effect an action to quiet title to property, which is not subject to prescription.

GR No. 165803

2010-09-01

SPS. REX v. DIONISIO Z. PARULAN

BERSAMIN, J.

Secondly, the sale was made on March 18, 1991, or after August 3, 1988, the effectivity of the Family Code. The proper law to apply is, therefore, Article 124 of the Family Code, for it is settled that any alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property made during the effectivity of the Family Code is governed by Article 124 of the Family Code.[28]

GR No. 146548

2009-12-18

HEIRS OF DOMINGO HERNANDEZ v. PLARIDEL MINGOA

In Sps. Alfredo v. Sps. Borras,[41] we held that: The Family Code, which took effect on 3 August 1988, provides that any alienation or encumbrance made by the husband of the conjugal partnership property without the consent of the wife is void. However, when the sale is made before the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law is the Civil Code.

GR NO. 156405

2007-02-28

SPS. GIL TORRECAMPO AND BRENDA TORRECAMPO v. DENNIS ALINDOGAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, we review only errors of law and not errors of facts. The factual findings of the appellate court are generally binding on this Court. This applies with greater force when both the trial court and the Court of Appeals are in complete agreement on their factual findings, as in this case. Here, the facts relied upon by the trial and appellate courts are sustained by the record. There is no reason to deviate from their findings.[5]

GR NO. 167320

2007-01-30

HEIRS OF SALVADOR HERMOSILLA v. SPS. JAIME REMOQUILLO AND LUZ REMOQUILLO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

From the allegations of the Complaint, petitioners seek the reconveyance of the property based on implied trust. The prescriptive period for the reconveyance of fraudulently registered real property is 10 years, reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title,[10] if the plaintiff is not in possession, but imprescriptible if he is in possession of the property.

GR Nos. 164684-85

2005-11-11

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It is a settled rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality.[30] Moreover, in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the Supreme Court reviews only errors of law and not errors of facts.[31] However, where there is divergence in the findings and conclusions of the NLRC, on the one hand, from those of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals, on the other, the Court is constrained to examine the evidence.[32]

GR NO. 159831

2005-10-14

PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. JOHN BORDMAN LTD. OF ILOILO

PANGANIBAN, J.

Estoppel by laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable length of time to do that which, by the exercise of due diligence, could or should have been done earlier.[90] Otherwise stated, negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time warrants a presumption that the party has abandoned or declined the right.[91] This principle is based on grounds of public policy, which discourages stale claims for the peace of society.[92]

GR NO. 145264

2005-08-30

NAPOLEON PORTES v. SEGUNDA ARCALA

CARPIO, J.

Respondents' action for reconveyance is not barred by prescription. The fraudulent registration of a parcel of land holds the person in whose name the land is registered as a mere trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.[20] An action for reconveyance of registered land based on implied trust prescribes in ten years even if the decree of registration is no longer open to review.[21] However, when the adverse claimants are still in possession of the property in dispute, the action for reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to property in one's own possession, is not subject to prescription.[22]

GR NO. 145264

2005-08-30

NAPOLEON PORTES v. SEGUNDA ARCALA

CARPIO, J.

Respondents' action for reconveyance is not barred by prescription. The fraudulent registration of a parcel of land holds the person in whose name the land is registered as a mere trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.[20] An action for reconveyance of registered land based on implied trust prescribes in ten years even if the decree of registration is no longer open to review.[21] However, when the adverse claimants are still in possession of the property in dispute, the action for reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to property in one's own possession, is not subject to prescription.[22]

GR NO. 165253

2005-08-18

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. BERNABET A. MAALA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

At the outset, it must be stressed that the issue of whether respondent acted in good faith is a question of fact, the determination of which is beyond the ambit of this Court's power of review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Only questions of law may be raised under this Rule as this Court is not a trier of facts.[19]

GR NO. 165420

2005-06-30

CONCEPCION R. AINZA v. SPS. ANTONIO PADUA AND EUGENIA PADUA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

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] When a verbal contract has been completed, executed or partially consummated, as in this case, 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]

GR NO. 141323

2005-06-08

DAVID V. PELAYO v. MELKI E. PEREZ

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Hence, it has been held that the contract is valid until the court annuls the same and only upon an action brought by the wife whose consent was not obtained.[11] In the present case, despite respondent's repeated demands for Lorenza to affix her signature on all the pages of the deed of sale, showing respondent's insistence on enforcing said contract, Lorenza still did not file a case for annulment of the deed of sale. It was only when respondent filed a complaint for specific performance on August 8, 1991 when petitioners brought up Lorenza's alleged lack of consent as an affirmative defense. Thus, if the transaction was indeed entered into without Lorenza's consent, we find it quite puzzling why for more than three and a half years, Lorenza did absolutely nothing to seek the nullification of the assailed contract.

GR No. 115925

2003-08-15

SPS. RICARDO PASCUAL AND CONSOLACION SIOSON v. CA

CARPIO, J.

REMEDIOS filed her complaint on 4 February 1988 or more than 19 years after CONSOLACION registered her title over Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E on 28 October 1968. Unquestionably, REMEDIOS filed the complaint late thus warranting its dismissal. As the Court recently declared in Spouses Alfredo v. Spouses Borras,[18] --

	GR No. 161360 2011-10-19	ESTRELLA TIONGCO YARED SUBSTITUTED BY CARMEN M. TIONGCO v. JOSE B. TIONGCO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Alfredo v. Borras,[31] the Court ruled that prescription does not run against the plaintiff in actual possession of the disputed land because such plaintiff has a right to wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is questioned before initiating an action to vindicate his right. His undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his title. The Court held that where the plaintiff in an action for reconveyance remains in possession of the subject land, the action for reconveyance becomes in effect an action to quiet title to property, which is not subject to prescription.
	GR No. 165803 2010-09-01	SPS. REX v. DIONISIO Z. PARULAN BERSAMIN, J.
Secondly, the sale was made on March 18, 1991, or after August 3, 1988, the effectivity of the Family Code. The proper law to apply is, therefore, Article 124 of the Family Code, for it is settled that any alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property made during the effectivity of the Family Code is governed by Article 124 of the Family Code.[28]
	GR No. 146548 2009-12-18	HEIRS OF DOMINGO HERNANDEZ v. PLARIDEL MINGOA
In Sps. Alfredo v. Sps. Borras,[41] we held that: The Family Code, which took effect on 3 August 1988, provides that any alienation or encumbrance made by the husband of the conjugal partnership property without the consent of the wife is void. However, when the sale is made before the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law is the Civil Code.
	GR NO. 156405 2007-02-28	SPS. GIL TORRECAMPO AND BRENDA TORRECAMPO v. DENNIS ALINDOGAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, we review only errors of law and not errors of facts. The factual findings of the appellate court are generally binding on this Court. This applies with greater force when both the trial court and the Court of Appeals are in complete agreement on their factual findings, as in this case. Here, the facts relied upon by the trial and appellate courts are sustained by the record. There is no reason to deviate from their findings.[5]
	GR NO. 167320 2007-01-30	HEIRS OF SALVADOR HERMOSILLA v. SPS. JAIME REMOQUILLO AND LUZ REMOQUILLO CARPIO MORALES, J.
From the allegations of the Complaint, petitioners seek the reconveyance of the property based on implied trust. The prescriptive period for the reconveyance of fraudulently registered real property is 10 years, reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title,[10] if the plaintiff is not in possession, but imprescriptible if he is in possession of the property.
	GR Nos. 164684-85 2005-11-11	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is a settled rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality.[30] Moreover, in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the Supreme Court reviews only errors of law and not errors of facts.[31] However, where there is divergence in the findings and conclusions of the NLRC, on the one hand, from those of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals, on the other, the Court is constrained to examine the evidence.[32]
	GR NO. 159831 2005-10-14	PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. JOHN BORDMAN LTD. OF ILOILO PANGANIBAN, J.
Estoppel by laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable length of time to do that which, by the exercise of due diligence, could or should have been done earlier.[90] Otherwise stated, negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time warrants a presumption that the party has abandoned or declined the right.[91] This principle is based on grounds of public policy, which discourages stale claims for the peace of society.[92]
	GR NO. 145264 2005-08-30	NAPOLEON PORTES v. SEGUNDA ARCALA CARPIO, J.
Respondents' action for reconveyance is not barred by prescription. The fraudulent registration of a parcel of land holds the person in whose name the land is registered as a mere trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.[20] An action for reconveyance of registered land based on implied trust prescribes in ten years even if the decree of registration is no longer open to review.[21] However, when the adverse claimants are still in possession of the property in dispute, the action for reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to property in one's own possession, is not subject to prescription.[22]
	GR NO. 145264 2005-08-30	NAPOLEON PORTES v. SEGUNDA ARCALA CARPIO, J.
Respondents' action for reconveyance is not barred by prescription. The fraudulent registration of a parcel of land holds the person in whose name the land is registered as a mere trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.[20] An action for reconveyance of registered land based on implied trust prescribes in ten years even if the decree of registration is no longer open to review.[21] However, when the adverse claimants are still in possession of the property in dispute, the action for reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to property in one's own possession, is not subject to prescription.[22]
	GR NO. 165253 2005-08-18	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. BERNABET A. MAALA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
At the outset, it must be stressed that the issue of whether respondent acted in good faith is a question of fact, the determination of which is beyond the ambit of this Court's power of review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Only questions of law may be raised under this Rule as this Court is not a trier of facts.[19]
	GR NO. 165420 2005-06-30	CONCEPCION R. AINZA v. SPS. ANTONIO PADUA AND EUGENIA PADUA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
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] When a verbal contract has been completed, executed or partially consummated, as in this case, 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]
	GR NO. 141323 2005-06-08	DAVID V. PELAYO v. MELKI E. PEREZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Hence, it has been held that the contract is valid until the court annuls the same and only upon an action brought by the wife whose consent was not obtained.[11] In the present case, despite respondent's repeated demands for Lorenza to affix her signature on all the pages of the deed of sale, showing respondent's insistence on enforcing said contract, Lorenza still did not file a case for annulment of the deed of sale. It was only when respondent filed a complaint for specific performance on August 8, 1991 when petitioners brought up Lorenza's alleged lack of consent as an affirmative defense. Thus, if the transaction was indeed entered into without Lorenza's consent, we find it quite puzzling why for more than three and a half years, Lorenza did absolutely nothing to seek the nullification of the assailed contract.
	GR No. 115925 2003-08-15	SPS. RICARDO PASCUAL AND CONSOLACION SIOSON v. CA CARPIO, J.
REMEDIOS filed her complaint on 4 February 1988 or more than 19 years after CONSOLACION registered her title over Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E on 28 October 1968. Unquestionably, REMEDIOS filed the complaint late thus warranting its dismissal. As the Court recently declared in Spouses Alfredo v. Spouses Borras,[18] --

SPS. GODOFREDO ALFREDO AND CARMEN LIMON ALFREDO v. SPS. ARMANDO BORRAS AND ADELIA LOBATON BORRAS