Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS

Cartoneros-Rojales

DIGESTED and COMPILED BY: Sheila May O.

Heirs Uberas vs. CFI of Negros Occidental G.R. No. L-48268, 86 SCRA 145 (October 30, 1978) FACTS: Siblings Segundo, Albino, Francisca, Pedro, and Alejandra Uberas inherited a parcel of land from their parents. Petitioners (children and successors in interest of Segundo Uberas and Albino Uberas) filed a complaint against respondents (surviving spouse and children of Pedro Uberas and Alejandra Uberas) for quieting of title, recovery of possession and ownership, partition, and reconveyance with damages of the property in suit. Defendants sought for dismissal on the ground that the action is barred by prescription. But plaintiffs argued that the action is imprescriptible because it is to quiet the title to the property in question, for partition, and for declaring heirship and deed of sale executed by defendants as void ab initio. The RTC dismissed the case on the ground of prescription, holding that the action is essentially for reconveyance based upon an implied trust resulting from fraud. In this case, plaintiffs aver that Pedro Uberas executed the declaration of heirship with malice and bad faith to deprive the compulsory heirs. ISSUE: Whether the case is one for quieting of title and therefore imprescriptible. RULING: This case is an action for quieting of title, which is imprescriptible. The teaching in Faja vs. CA applies, that is, an action to quiet title to property in the possession of plaintiff is imprescriptible and that where there are material facts to be inquired into and resolved on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties which will determine the legal precepts to be applied, as in this case, the complaining party should be given full opportunity to prove his case. RTC should not have summarily dismissed the case on the alleged ground of prescription notwithstanding contrary factual averments in the complaint which would clearly rule out prescription. The SC set aside respondent courts order of dismissal and remanded the case to respondent court for trial and determination on the merits.