22. CABRERA v TIANO  The TC ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Hence, this petition.

Tiano contented
GR NO. L-17299
JULY 31, 1963
By: CHESKA DOMINGUEZ
Topic: ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION; TACKING; EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION
Petitioners: JOSEFINA POTESTAS CABRERA and CRESENCIA POTESTAS OMULON
Respondents: MARIANO T. TIANO
Ponente: PAREDES, J.
RECIT-READY/SUMMARY: The father of herein plaintiffs, including Josefina who
did not sign the DOS and Cresencia who was then a minor, sold their land to
defendant Tiano on July 2, 1947. On June 20, 1957, plaintiffs filed an action
against defendant. On July 2, 1957, Tiano received the summons and answered
he is the owner by virtue of acquisitive prescription. The TC ruled in favor of the
plaintiffs. Tiano appealed directly to the SC arguing that the action of the plaintiffs
already prescribed since the summons was received by him exactly 10-years from
the date of sale. The SC ruled that the prescription shall end on July 2, 1957 but
the plaintiffs already filed their complaint on June 20, 1957, prior to the expiration
of the prescriptive period. The date of the issuance and service of summons is of
no moment.
DOCTRINE: The commencement of the suit prior to the expiration of the applicable
limitation period, interrupts the running of the statute.
that the action of the plaintiffs is barred by prescription, since the same
prescribed on July 2, 1957 when the summons was served to him.
ISSUE:
(1) WON the action of the plaintiffs is barred by prescription?
HELD/RATIO:
(1) NO.
 Since the sale of the property took place on July 2, 1947, the 10-year period
within which to file the action had not yet elapsed on June 20, 1957, when
the complaint was presented.
 The fact that summons was only served on defendant on July 2, 1957,
which incidentally and/or coincidentally was the end of the 10-year period,
is of no moment, since civil actions are deemed commenced from date of
the filing and docketing of the complaint with the Clerk of Court, without
taking into account the issuance and service of summons.
 Tiano cannot avail himself of acquisitive prescription, for the simple reason
that no finding was made by the trial court that his possession from the
time of the sale was with just title, in good faith, in the concept of an
owner, public, peaceful, adverse and uninterrupted.
 SC affirmed the decision of the TC.

FACTS:
 Sps. Potestas were the parents of herein plaintiffs. They acquired a parcel
of agricultural land during their lifetime. On July 2, 1947, Ciriaco, the
surviving husband and three children (Isabelo, Lourdes and Cresencia),
purportedly sold the above mentioned parcel to herein defendant Tiano.
At the time of the sale, Cresencia was only 16 y.o., and the other child,
Josefina, did not sign the deed of sale, and did not know about the
transaction.
 On June 20, 1957, an action for Partition and Recovery of Real Estate, with
Damages was filed by Josefina and Cresencia against Tiano. In the
complaint, it was alleged that they were entitled to a portion of the land,
since Josefina did not sign the sale and Cresencia was a minor.
 On July 2, 1957, summons was served to Tiano. In Answer, he claimed that
the plaintiffs herein knew of the sale and that he was not aware of any
defect in the title of his vendors. As a Special Defense, defendant alleged
that he was the absolute owner of the land by acquisitive prescription of
10 years, from the date of purchase.