P. 1
Digest - Alarcon vs Bidin

Digest - Alarcon vs Bidin

|Views: 35|Likes:
Published by Emrys Pendragon
Alarcon vs. Bidin Digest
Alarcon vs. Bidin Digest

More info:

Published by: Emrys Pendragon on Feb 10, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Purificacion Alarcon vs. Hon. Abdulwahid Bidin et al FACTS: In 1923, Roberto Alarcon leased a property with TCT No.

T-13,125(0-9493) to Esteban Sergas. On January 5, 1926, Roberto Alarcon sold a portion of his undivided share to Sergas. The date of instrument was January 5, 1926 but the inscription was on May 3, 1963. Also the name of the vendor in instrument was Roberto Alarcon but the typewritten name ar the bottom of the documents, above which appears a thumbmark reads Alberto Alarcon. On July 9, 1928, Roberto Alarcon sold another portion of his share of the land to Adela Alvarez who later on sold it to Domingo Rojas Francisco on November 29, 1954. On October 23, 1978, Petitioners filed a suit for recovery of what they allege is their portion of cadastral lot 3178. Private respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations and that petitioners are guilty of laches. On May 23, 1979, respondent Judge dismissed the complaint “for the reason that it is barred by laches. Also on August 27, 1979, motion for reconsideration was denied by the court. ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint is barred by the statute of limitation and that the petitioners are guilty of laches. HELD: Since 1926, the date of sale of property to Esteban Serges, he already took possession of the property and has been in adverse possession under claim of ownership. Same with Adela Alvarez who also took possession of said property from the year it was sold till it was then again sold to Domingo Rojas Francisco, who also held the property in possession under claim of ownership till now. The vendor Roberto Alarcon took no steps in rescinding the sales nor reivindicate the property. As far as the petitioners are concerned, more than 50 years has elapsed since the execution of the deeds of sale. This already constituted laches. Instant petition is hereby denied for lack of merit.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->