June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 189103 : June 13, 2012]
PRIMITIVO R. DOMINGO, JR., TERESA D. SANDERS, DANILO R. DOMINGO, IRENEO R. DOMINGO, ROSARIO DOMINGO-LACSON, LORETA DOMINGO-PANIS, MARY ANN R. DOMINGO, AMADOR R. DOMINGO, LYDIA T. DOMINGO, MICHELLE D. DETITA, SERGIO T. DOMINGO, JR. AND JENNILYN T. DOMINGO v. ARNULFO MANZON, AMELIA MANZON-PANGANIBAN, ORLANDO MANZON, ADORACION MANZON-PESTANO, MILAGROS MANZON-TOLENTINO, RIZALINA MANZON-MARZAN, QUIRINO MANZON, FELICISIMA MANZON-SANTIAGO AND BENITA MANZON-TINIO
G.R. No. 189103 (Primitivo R. Domingo, Jr., Teresa D. Sanders, Danilo R. Domingo, Ireneo R. Domingo, Rosario Domingo-Lacson, Loreta Domingo-Panis, Mary Ann R. Domingo, Amador R. Domingo, Lydia T. Domingo, Michelle D. Detita, Sergio T. Domingo, Jr. and Jennilyn T. Domingo v. Arnulfo Manzon, Amelia Manzon-Panganiban, Orlando Manzon, Adoracion Manzon-Pestano, Milagros Manzon-Tolentino, Rizalina Manzon-Marzan, Quirino Manzon, Felicisima Manzon-Santiago and Benita Manzon-Tinio)
RESOLUTION
After a perusal of the records of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition for failure to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in upholding the rights of the respondents over Lot 731 which was erroneously included in Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. O-4178 in the names of Spouses Primitivo and Rosario Domingo. While the latter were issued OCT No. O-4178 pursuant to a decree in Cadastral Case No. N-1 as early as July 9, 1979, petitioners failed to sufficiently show proof of acquisition and inclusion of Lot 731 in their title, or of having exercised acts of ownership on said lot. On the other hand, respondents were able to establish their actual and continuous possession of the subject property since 1955, reckoned from the possession of their predecessor-in-interest, Lazaro Manzon. Consequently, prescription did not run against the respondents whose undisturbed possession gave them the continuing right to seek the aid of the courts in ascertaining and determining the nature of any adverse claim and its effect on their title. Settled is the rule that the one in actual possession of a land under a claim of ownership may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate such right.[1] Accordingly, the reconveyance of Lot 731 to respondents who have shown a better right was only proper. (Peralta, J., no part; Perez, J., designated member per Raffle dated July 25, 2011. Velasco, Jr., J., on official leave; Villarama, Jr., J., designated as acting member per Special Order No. 1229 dated June 6, 2012.) cralaw
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Mendizabel v. Apao, G.R. No. 143185, February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 587, 609.