Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 645 views

    Heirs of Crisologo V Ranon

    Uploaded by

    Praisah Marjorey Picot
    Ranon claimed ownership of a parcel of land in Ilocos through acquisitive prescription. The heirs argued that Ranon's possession was interrupted by a notice of adverse claim filed by their predecessor in 1977. However, the court found that (1) the notice did not effectively interrupt Ranon's possession as a judicial summons was required, (2) Ranon's possession was in the concept of an owner through various acts over several decades, and (3) Ranon acquired ownership of the property through extraordinary acquisitive prescription by possessing it for over 30 years continuously without title or good faith. The court therefore ruled in favor of Ranon's ownership claim.

    Copyright:

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

    Heirs of Crisologo V Ranon

    Uploaded by

    Praisah Marjorey Picot
    645 views2 pages
    Ranon claimed ownership of a parcel of land in Ilocos through acquisitive prescription. The heirs argued that Ranon's possession was interrupted by a notice of adverse claim filed by their predecessor in 1977. However, the court found that (1) the notice did not effectively interrupt Ranon's possession as a judicial summons was required, (2) Ranon's possession was in the concept of an owner through various acts over several decades, and (3) Ranon acquired ownership of the property through extraordinary acquisitive prescription by possessing it for over 30 years continuously without title or good faith. The court therefore ruled in favor of Ranon's ownership claim.

    Original Description:

    Prop digest

    Original Title

    Heirs of Crisologo v Ranon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ranon claimed ownership of a parcel of land in Ilocos through acquisitive prescription. The heirs argued that Ranon's possession was interrupted by a notice of adverse claim filed by their predecessor in 1977. However, the court found that (1) the notice did not effectively interrupt Ranon's possession as a judicial summons was required, (2) Ranon's possession was in the concept of an owner through various acts over several decades, and (3) Ranon acquired ownership of the property through extraordinary acquisitive prescription by possessing it for over 30 years continuously without title or good faith. The court therefore ruled in favor of Ranon's ownership claim.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    645 views2 pages

    Heirs of Crisologo V Ranon

    Uploaded by

    Praisah Marjorey Picot
    Ranon claimed ownership of a parcel of land in Ilocos through acquisitive prescription. The heirs argued that Ranon's possession was interrupted by a notice of adverse claim filed by their predecessor in 1977. However, the court found that (1) the notice did not effectively interrupt Ranon's possession as a judicial summons was required, (2) Ranon's possession was in the concept of an owner through various acts over several decades, and (3) Ranon acquired ownership of the property through extraordinary acquisitive prescription by possessing it for over 30 years continuously without title or good faith. The court therefore ruled in favor of Ranon's ownership claim.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Heirs of Crisologo v Rañon

    G.R. No. 171068, September 5, 2007


    Andamon, Honey Charish U.

    FACTS:

    The subject property in this case is a parcel of unregistered land in Ilocos.

    Ranon claims to be the owner of said lot by prescription. That her family had been in continuous,
    adverse and uninterrupted possession of such since 1962; that they paid taxes thereto; and even built
    a house where she and her family had resided. They however moved to Manila but continued to visit
    the property from time to time. In 1986, a fire incident occurred which destroyed the house. The same
    year, they discovered that the property was already in the name of Sps. Montemayor.

    Sps. Montemayor alleged that they bought the parcel of land from del Rosario and Arzadon (heirs in
    this case). The heirs however were able to repurchase the property from the spouses.

    So between the heirs and Ranon, the heirs alleged that they are the owners through succession. That
    Arzadon lived there until the fire incident; and that they paid taxes. They alleged that in 1977, Marcelina,
    their predecessor filed an adverse claim against Ranon. The heirs argued that such filing interrupted
    Ranon’s possession over the property.

    ISSUES:
    1. WON the Notice of Adverse Claim interrupted Ranon’s possession. -NO.
    2. WON Ranon’s possession is in the concept of an owner. -YES.
    3. WON Ranon acquired the property through acquisitive prescription. -YES.

    RULING:
    1. NO.

    For civil interruption to take place, the possessor must have received judicial summons. The Notice of
    Adverse Claim which was filed by Marcelina in 1977 is nothing more than a notice of claim which did
    not effectively interrupt Ranon’s possession.

    2. YES. Ranon’s possession is in the concept of an owner.

    Court found the following as acts of dominion:


    - Built a house on the property;
    - Continued visiting and looking after the property even as they already moved to Manila;
    - Paid taxes;
    - Ranon (husband) executed an affidavit declaring himself to be the true and lawful owner, an
    express repudiation to the claim of the heirs.

    3. YES. Through Extraordinary Acquisitive Prescription.

    There are two (2) kinds of Prescription:


    a. Ordinary acquisitive prescription- possession in good faith and with just title for 10 years.
    b. Extraordinary acquisitive prescription- possession for 30 years without need of title or
    good faith.
    Ranon traced their claim of ownership from 1962 until the filing of their Complaint for Ownership on
    1995, a total of 33 years. It was never interrupted by the Notice of the Adverse Claim filed by Marcelina
    because it is judicial summons and not mere notice that is required by law.

    You might also like