8/9/2019 Heirs of Maninding vs. CA

1/4

8/9/2019 Heirs of Maninding vs. CA

2/4

e%idence of ownership, $et, when coupled with proof of actual possession, as inthe instant case, ta? declarations and receipts are strong e%idence of ownership#97:

'%en assuming that the donation proper nuptias is %oid for failure to compl$with formal reuisites,9;: it could still constitute a legal asis for ad%ersepossession# @ith clear and con%incing e%idence of possession, a pri%atedocument of donation ma$ ser%e as asis for a claim of ownership# 94: In Pensader v. Pensader 9: we ruled that while the %eral donation under  which the defendant and his predecessors6in6interest ha%e een in possessionof the lands in uestion is not effecti%e as a transfer of title, still it is a circumstancewhich ma$ e?plain the ad%erse and e?clusi%e character of thepossession# In Espique v. Espique91

8/9/2019 Heirs of Maninding vs. CA

3/4

Therefore while prescription among co6owners cannot taBe place when theacts of ownership e?ercised are %ague and uncertain, such prescription arises andproduces all its effects when the acts of ownership do not e%ince an$ dout as tothe ouster of the rights of the other co6owners# 91=: 5s disclosed $ the records,Roue )au*on and his heirs possessed the propert$ from 134 to 147 to thee?clusion of petitioners who were ne%er gi%en their shares of the fruits of theproperties, for which reason the$ demanded an accounting of the produce and thecon%e$ance to them of their shares# 0nfortunatel$ the$ slept on their rights andallowed almost thirt$6si? (=7 $ears to lapse efore attempting to assert their 

right# "erforce, the$ must suffer the conseuence of their inaction#

;HEREFORE, the petition is D'NI'D# The Resolution of the !ourt of  5ppeals of ; .ul$ 18 which modified its Decision of 2 No%emer 13 andholding that the deceased Roue )au*on acuired the disputed two (2 parcels of land $ acuisiti%e prescription is 5FFIR/'D# !osts against petitioners#

SO ORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/121157.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/121157.htm#_edn13

8/9/2019 Heirs of Maninding vs. CA

4/4

Her! o M*""$"< = 'A Hacuisiti%e prescription Hdonation proper nuptias Hrice

and sugarland# A o6o>"er !4*ll %e o%l"er!4

*"$ #4*# e*4 o6o>"er +*y $e+*"$ *# *"y #+e #4e *r##o" o #4e #4"<

o>"e$ " o++o" "!o*r *! 4! !4*re ! o"er"e$.

FA')S:  On =1 .ul$ 1; See claimed that 4e *?ure$

o>"er!4 o=er %o#4 #4e sugarland   *"$ #4e riceland   %y $o"*#o"  propter 

nuptias from his parents Ramon )au*on and Sotera +ulueta on 21 5pril 127 in

consideration of his marriage to "etra &oresco# Since the death of Ramon )au*on

in 134, Ro?ue 4*$ %ee" " oe", o"#"uou!, "o#orou!, *$=er!e *"$ *#u*l

o!!e!!o" o #4e !u%@e# roer#e!#

The trial court found that the parcels of land formed part of the estate of Ramon

)au*on and his wife Sotera +ulueta which, upon their death, de%ol%ed $ right of 

succession to their children Segunda /aningding, /aria /aningding, .uan

/aningding and Roue )au*on in eual   pro-indiviso  shares# )4e our# a quo

4o>e=er *>*r$e$ %o#4 *rel! #o Se"er! " e?u*l !4*re! after finding that .uan /aningding and /aria

/aningding had alread$ e?ecuted an  Affidavit of Quitclaim  and Renunciation# I#

re@e#e$ #4e $ee$ o $o"*#o" or *lure #o ro=e #! $ue eeu#o" *"$

*u#4e"##y and ruled that the same was negated $ the  Affidavit of Quitclaim

and Renunciation of .uan /aningding and /aria /aningding in fa%or of Roue

)au*on and nullified the deed of sale $ Roue )au*on in fa%or of &uis )au*on as

regards the riceland and to 'rierta )au*on with respect to the sugarland# It

concluded that Roue )au*on could not ha%e %alidl$ con%e$ed oth parcels as

one6half (1A2 of each parcel rightfull$ elonged to Segunda /aningding and her 

heirs#

The 'our# o Ae*l! howe%er ruled that the roer#e! =*l$ly er#*"e$ #o

Ro?ue /*u8o" %y =r#ue o #4e $o"*#o" propter nuptias# !onseuentl$, the

transfers made $ Roue )au*on must e gi%en effect# >owe%er, upon motion for 

reconsideration, the same $ee$ o $o"*#o" >*! $el*re$ "ull *"$ =o$ %y #4e

*ell*#e our# or *lure #o o+ly >#4 Ar#. B33 o #4e ol$ '=l 'o$e, #4e

l*> #4e" *l*%le, >44 re?ure$ or #4e =*l$#y o #4e $ee$ o $o"*#o" #o

%e " * u%l "!#ru+e"## Ne%ertheless, the same court maintained that the

properties %elo"#4 @u!# ##le or #e" 1C ye*r!# In e#r*or$"*ry re!r#o"

ownership and other real rights o%er immo%ale propert$ are acuired through

u""#erru#e$ *$=er!e o!!e!!o" #4ereo or #4r#y 3C ye*r!, >#4ou# "ee$

o ##le or o 4e" oule$ >#4 roo o 

*#u*l o!!e!!o", *! " #4e "!#*"# *!e, #* $el*r*#o"! *"$ ree#! *re

!#ro"< e=$e"e o o>"er!4# 

E=e" *!!u+"< #4*# #4e $o"*#o" proper nuptias ! =o$ or *lure #o o+ly

>#4 or+*l re?u!#e!,  # oul$ !#ll o"!##u#e * le4e" #4e *#! o o>"er!4 $o "o# e="e *"y $ou%#

*! #o #4e ou!#er o #4e r"er! #  5s disclosed $ the

records, Roue )au*on and his heirs possessed the propert$ from 134 to 147 to

the elu!o" o e##o"er! >4o >ere "e=er