Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 244 views

    Restar vs. Cichon

    Uploaded by

    Joicey Catamio
    The Supreme Court ruled that the heirs of Flores Restar acquired ownership of the disputed land through acquisitive prescription. When the original owner Emilio Restar died in 1935, his eight children became co-owners of the land. However, in 1960, Flores Restar secured a tax declaration under his name, evidencing his repudiation of the co-ownership. For over 38 years since 1960, Flores and his heirs possessed the land by cultivating and enjoying its fruits, paying real property taxes, and introducing improvements. The other co-owners did not assert their ownership claim until 1999. Thus, Flores' heirs acquired ownership through the lapse of the 30-year prescriptive period for adverse possession

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Restar vs. Cichon

    Uploaded by

    Joicey Catamio
    244 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the heirs of Flores Restar acquired ownership of the disputed land through acquisitive prescription. When the original owner Emilio Restar died in 1935, his eight children became co-owners of the land. However, in 1960, Flores Restar secured a tax declaration under his name, evidencing his repudiation of the co-ownership. For over 38 years since 1960, Flores and his heirs possessed the land by cultivating and enjoying its fruits, paying real property taxes, and introducing improvements. The other co-owners did not assert their ownership claim until 1999. Thus, Flores' heirs acquired ownership through the lapse of the 30-year prescriptive period for adverse possession

    Original Description:

    deda

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the heirs of Flores Restar acquired ownership of the disputed land through acquisitive prescription. When the original owner Emilio Restar died in 1935, his eight children became co-owners of the land. However, in 1960, Flores Restar secured a tax declaration under his name, evidencing his repudiation of the co-ownership. For over 38 years since 1960, Flores and his heirs possessed the land by cultivating and enjoying its fruits, paying real property taxes, and introducing improvements. The other co-owners did not assert their ownership claim until 1999. Thus, Flores' heirs acquired ownership through the lapse of the 30-year prescriptive period for adverse possession

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    244 views3 pages

    Restar vs. Cichon

    Uploaded by

    Joicey Catamio
    The Supreme Court ruled that the heirs of Flores Restar acquired ownership of the disputed land through acquisitive prescription. When the original owner Emilio Restar died in 1935, his eight children became co-owners of the land. However, in 1960, Flores Restar secured a tax declaration under his name, evidencing his repudiation of the co-ownership. For over 38 years since 1960, Flores and his heirs possessed the land by cultivating and enjoying its fruits, paying real property taxes, and introducing improvements. The other co-owners did not assert their ownership claim until 1999. Thus, Flores' heirs acquired ownership through the lapse of the 30-year prescriptive period for adverse possession

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    G.R. No. 161720 November 22, 2005 J.

    Carpio Morales
    HEIRS OF FLORES RESTAR namely: ESMENIA R. RESTAR, BERNARDITA R.
    RENTINO, LUCIA RESTAR, RODOLFO RESTAR, JANET R. RELOJERO, LORNA R.
    RAMOS, MANUEL RESTAR, NENITA R. BELLEZA, MIRASOL R. DELA CRUZ,
    ROSELLE R. MATORRE, POLICARPIO RESTAR and ADOLFO RESTAR vs. HEIRS
    OF DOLORES R. CICHON, namely: RUDY R. CICHON, NORMA C. LACHICA,
    NILDA C. JUMAYAO, LYDIA C. SANTOS, and NELSON R. CICHON; HEIRS OF
    PERPETUA R. STA. MARIA, namely GEORGE STA. MARIA, LILIA M. MANIAGO,
    DERLY M. CONCEPCION, GERVY STA. MARIA, DORY M. INDULO; HEIRS OF
    MARIA R. ROSE, namely: TERESITA R. MALOCO, ROLANDO ROSE, EDELYN R.
    PALACIO and MINERVA R. PASTRANA, DOMINICA RESTAR-RELOJERO and
    PACIENCIA RESTAR MANARES
    While the action to demand partition of a co-owned property does not prescribe, a
    co-owner may acquire ownership thereof by prescription where there exists a clear
    repudiation of the co-ownership, and the co-owners are apprised of the claim of
    adverse and exclusive ownership.
    FACTS:
    -In 1935, Emilio Restar died intestate leaving 8 children-compulsory heirs. In 1960,
    Emilios eldest child, Flores caused the cancellation of a tax declration under
    Restars name covering a lot located at Brgy Carugdog, Lezo, Aklan and a new tax
    declaration issued under his name. Flores died in 1989. The co-heirs of Flores
    discovered the acts of Flores.
    -The heirs of Flores sisters together with Flores surviving issters filed a complaint
    against Flores heirs for partition of the said lot and declaration of nullity of
    documents, ownership before the RTC.
    -Flores brothers Policarpio and Adolfo were impleaded as defendants but they were
    unwilling co-plaintiffs.
    -The respondents alleged that during the lifetime of FLores, they were given their
    shares of Palay from the lot eand even after the death of Flores. Flores widow
    Esmenia appealed to them to allow her to hold on to the lot to finance the education
    of her childreen to which the respondents agreed on the condition that when they
    finish their education, the lot would be divided into 8 equal parts. Upon demand for
    the partition, the Heirs of Flores refused claiming that they were the lawful owners
    of the land which they inherited from Flores.
    -The Heirs of Flores claimed that they had been in possession of the lot in the
    concept of owner for more than 30 years and been paying the realty taxes ever
    since. They denied the claims of the respondents. They further claimed that after
    WW2, Flores caused the transfer of parcels of ricelands in Aklan to his siblings as
    their shares from the estate of their father Emilio and that an extra-judicial partition
    took place in 1973 which was notarized by an Atty. Jose Igtanloc and appointing
    among themselves 4 parcels of land.
    -Adolfo interposed no objection to the partition of the lot while Policarpio
    acknowledged Flores as the owner of the lot but part of it was sold to him which he
    prayed for the exclusion in the partition.
    -The RTC of Aklan stated that Flores and his heirs had performed acts sufficient to
    constitute repudiation of the co-ownership, and have aquired the lot by prescription.
    The RTC dismissed the complaint. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC .

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the Heirs of Flores acquired the land through adverse possession.

    RULING:
    YES.
    When Restar died in 1935, his eight children became pro indiviso co-owners of the
    lot by intestate succession. Respondents never possessed the lot, however, much
    less asserted their claim thereto until January 21, 1999 when they filed the
    complaint for partition subject of the present petition.
    In contrast, Flores took possession of the lot after Restars death and exercised acts
    of dominion thereon tilling and cultivating the land, introducing improvements,
    and enjoying the produce thereof.
    The statutory period of prescription, however, commenced not in 1935 but in 1960
    when Flores, who had neither title nor good faith, secured a tax declaration in his
    name and may, therefore, be said to have adversely claimed ownership of the lot.
    And respondents were also deemed to have been on said date become aware of the
    adverse claim.
    Flores possession thus ripened into ownership through acquisitive prescription after
    the lapse of thirty years in accordance with the earlier quoted Article 1137 of the
    New Civil Code.
    The evidence proved that as far back as 1959, Flores Restar adjudicated unto
    himself the whole land in question as his share from his father by means of a joint
    affidavit which he executed with one Helen Restar, and he requested the Provincial
    Treasurer/Assessor to have the land declared in his name. It was admitted by the
    parties during the pre-trial that this affidavit was the basis of the transfer of Tax
    Declaration No. 6686 from Emilio Restar to Flores Restar. So that from 1960 the land
    was declared in the name of Flores Restar (Exhibit 10). This was the first concrete
    act of repudiation made by Flores of the co-ownership over the land in question. x x
    x
    Plaintiffs did not deny that aside from the verbal partition of one parcel of land in
    Carugdog, Lezo, Aklan way back in 1945, they also had an amicable partition of the
    lands of Emilio Restar in Cerrudo and Palale, Banga Aklan on September 28, 1973
    (exhibit "20"). If they were able to demand the partition, why then did they not
    demand the inclusion of the land in question in order to settle once and for all the
    inheritance from their father Emilio Restar, considering that at that time all of the
    brothers and sisters, the eight heirs of Emilio Restar, were still alive and participated
    in the signing of the extra-judicial partition?

    Also it was admitted that Flores died only in 1989. Plaintiffs had all the chances (sic)
    to file a case against him from 1960, or a period of 29 years when he was still alive,
    yet they failed to do so. They filed the instant case only on January 22, 1999, almost
    ten (10) years after Flores death.
    From the foregoing evidence, it can be seen that the adverse possession of Flores
    started in 1960, the time when the tax declaration was transferred in his name. The
    period of acquisitive prescription started to run from this date. Hence, the adverse
    possession of Flores Restar from 1960 vested in him exclusive ownership of the land
    considering the lapse of more than 38 years. Acquisitive prescription of ownership,
    laches and prescription of the action for partition should be considered in favor of
    Flores Restar and his heirs.
    While tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership and
    do not prove title to the land, nevertheless, when coupled with actual possession,
    they constitute evidence of great weight and can be the basis of a claim of
    ownership through prescription.

    You might also like