This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-10-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In the meantime, Fabian Calma died intestate. A petition for the administration of his estate was filed in the RTC of Tarlac docketed as Special Proceedings No. 1262. Lucia Calma was appointed as administratrix of the estate. The heirs executed a Deed of Partition over the property on April 17, 1967. On September 13, 1967,[5] TCT No. 19181 was cancelled by TCT No. 71826 in the names of Agatona Calma, Emilio Calma, Demetria Calma and Fabian Calma. | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| During trial, Felimon Santioque testified for the plaintiffs. He admitted that they had no copy of OCT No. 1112; the Register of Deeds likewise had no record of the said title, nor TCT No. 13287.[12] He discovered from the said office that the subject lot was covered by TCT No. 19181 with the names of Agatona Calma and her co-heirs as owners.[13] The title was, in turn, cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 71286 also in the names of Agatona Calma and her co-heirs. | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Further, we agree with the appellate court that petitioners' complaint is barred by prescription and laches. An action for reconveyance prescribes in ten years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or the date of issuance of the certificate of title over the property.[64] Even if we reckon the prescription period from TCT No. 19181 issued on November 27, 1953, the only title verified to be in the name of respondents, more than ten years have already elapsed since then until the time the petitioners filed their complaint on February 29, 1998. An action for reconveyance is imprescriptible only when the plaintiff is in actual possession of the property.[65] In the present case, there is no showing that petitioners were in actual possession of the subject property. | |||||