Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Morales v Court of First Instance case sigest

    Uploaded by

    Kim Valentino
    33 views1 page
    1. In 1957, the predecessors-in-interest of petitioner Morales filed a civil case against private respondents for recovery of possession and ownership of land, which was dismissed in 1963. 2. In 1978, petitioner filed another civil case seeking similar relief. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling the claim had prescribed. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the action had not prescribed, as less than 30 years had elapsed between the dismissal in 1963 and the filing of the second case in 1978 based on the Civil Code provision establishing a 30-year prescriptive period for real actions over immovables.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    1. MORALES v COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CASE DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. In 1957, the predecessors-in-interest of petitioner Morales filed a civil case against private respondents for recovery of possession and ownership of land, which was dismissed in 1963. 2. In 1978, petitioner filed another civil case seeking similar relief. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling the claim had prescribed. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the action had not prescribed, as less than 30 years had elapsed between the dismissal in 1963 and the filing of the second case in 1978 based on the Civil Code provision establishing a 30-year prescriptive period for real actions over immovables.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    33 views1 page

    Morales v Court of First Instance case sigest

    Uploaded by

    Kim Valentino
    1. In 1957, the predecessors-in-interest of petitioner Morales filed a civil case against private respondents for recovery of possession and ownership of land, which was dismissed in 1963. 2. In 1978, petitioner filed another civil case seeking similar relief. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling the claim had prescribed. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the action had not prescribed, as less than 30 years had elapsed between the dismissal in 1963 and the filing of the second case in 1978 based on the Civil Code provision establishing a 30-year prescriptive period for real actions over immovables.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    MORALES v COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CASE SIGEST

    FACTS:

    1. In 1957, Terez spouses (petitioner Morales’ predecessors-in-interest) filed a civil case against private respondents
    Busarang and Gonzaga for the recovery of possession, ownership, unpaid rentals and damages of ½ of land a house
    built thereon, situated in Ozamis City. The trial court dismissed the complaint on January 24, 1963.
    2. A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner Terez spouses, which the court dismissed in August 12, 1963.
    3. On May 7, 1978, petitioner filed another civil case with allegation and reliefs substantially similar to those stated in the
    previous civil case.
    4. RTC: complaint was dismissed on the ground of prescription. “After the former case was dismissed on August 12,
    1963… the herein plaintiffs shall have refiled the case within 10 years, otherwise their right to recover possession and
    ownership of real property shall prescribed.”

    ISSUE: WON the action had prescribed by May 7, 1978

    RULING:

    There are two types of prescription in Civil Code – acquisitive and extinctive. In the present case, it is extinctive prescription
    which is involved and the subject matter being real or immovable.

    Art. 1141. Real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years.

    This provision is without prejudice to what is established for the acquisition of ownership and other real
    rights.

    The respondent judge relied on the 2nd paragraph of the above-quoted article, and has ruled in effect that the action is barred
    because the defendants have acquired the subject matter of the action by acquisitive prescription of 10 years.

    This is a manifest error for the defendants have not claimed acquisitive prescription in their answer, and even if they
    did, it cannot be given judicial sanction by mere allegations. The law required one who asserts ownership by adverse
    possession to prove the presence of the essential elements of ordinary acquisitive prescription – good faith, just
    title, lapse of time fixed by law. This was not done by the defendants.

    From August 12, 1963 to May 7, 1978, less than 30 years had elapsed. Hence, the action had not prescribed.

    You might also like