Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 85 views

    Notice: Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court Manila Second Division

    Uploaded by

    Philip Jamero
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the petition for review and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found that the claim to the subject property was already barred by prescription and laches. Gaudencia Bilocura, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, had repudiated the petitioners' claim to the property over 30 years ago by excluding the petitioners from the property and appropriating the harvest proceeds. The petitioners' failure to assert their claim for such a long period also constituted laches. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Notice: Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court Manila Second Division

    Uploaded by

    Philip Jamero
    85 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the petition for review and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found that the claim to the subject property was already barred by prescription and laches. Gaudencia Bilocura, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, had repudiated the petitioners' claim to the property over 30 years ago by excluding the petitioners from the property and appropriating the harvest proceeds. The petitioners' failure to assert their claim for such a long period also constituted laches. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

    Original Title

    17107

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the petition for review and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found that the claim to the subject property was already barred by prescription and laches. Gaudencia Bilocura, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, had repudiated the petitioners' claim to the property over 30 years ago by excluding the petitioners from the property and appropriating the harvest proceeds. The petitioners' failure to assert their claim for such a long period also constituted laches. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    85 views3 pages

    Notice: Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court Manila Second Division

    Uploaded by

    Philip Jamero
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the petition for review and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found that the claim to the subject property was already barred by prescription and laches. Gaudencia Bilocura, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, had repudiated the petitioners' claim to the property over 30 years ago by excluding the petitioners from the property and appropriating the harvest proceeds. The petitioners' failure to assert their claim for such a long period also constituted laches. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    SECOND DIVISION

    NOTICE
    Sirs/Mesdames:

    Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
    dated 28 February 2022 which reads as follows :

    "UDK- 17107 (Beatriz Gerson, Gregorio Dinaguit and Heirs of Gleceria


    Dinaguit, represented by Teresita Aninon v. Heirs of Gaudencia Bilocura,
    namely: Nena Celestina 8. Dinopol, Conchita Bilocura, Nestor Bilocura, J ose
    Bilocura, Rosalinda Sulit, Lydia Tagyomon, Rosalinda Bilocura, Jennilyn
    Bilocura, Marlon Bilocura, Rosemarie Bilocura, and Flora Mae Bilocura, all
    represented by Nena Celestina B. Dinopol). - After a judicious study of the
    case, the Court resolves to DEN Y the instant petition for revievv on certiorari 1 and
    2
    AFFIRM the Decision dated May 10, 2019 and the Resolution 3 dated May 26,
    2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in -CA-G .R . SP No. 10880,' for failure of
    petitioners Beatriz Gerson, et al. (petitioners) to show that the CA committed any
    reversible error in finding that their claim to the subject lot was repudiated by
    respondents Nena Celestina B. DinopoL et
    al..'s (respondents) predecessor-in-
    interest, Gaudencia B ilocura (Gaudencia) and that it was already barred by
    prescription and laches.

    At the outset, the Court notes that since the instant petition is not verified as
    required under Rule 45, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, it may be treated as an
    unsigned pleading which produces no legal effect. 4 Nonetheless,· a verification is
    merely a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement, 5 and the Court may waive strict
    compliance thereto in the interest of substantial justice. However, even if the
    foregoing procedural lapse is disregarded, it appears that the petition is
    unmeritorious.

    As correctly held by the CA, the claim to partition the 9,293 square meter
    parcel of land located ii1 Basak, Samboan, Cebu<' (subject lot) is already barred by

    1
    Dated August 12,.202.1; rollo, pp. 11-26.
    Id. at 28-39. Penned 'by· Executive Justice and Chairperson Edgardo L. Delos Santos ( 110 \\1 a retired
    Member of the Court) with Associate .Justi ces ivhiri lyn B. Lagura-Yap and Dorothy P. Monte_jo-
    Gonzaga, concurring.
    id. at ·40-45. Penned by Associate .lustil:e Maril yn B. tagura-Yap with Associate Justi ces Doiothy P.
    _ Montejo-Gonzaga and Nanc_y C. Rivas-Palmones, concurrin g. · _
    See Rul e 7, Section 4 of A. M. No. 19- 10-20-SC enLitled '20 19 PRC>l'OSEn. AMENDMENTS TO THE: 1997
    Ruu: s OF CIVIL PROCEDURE' . See also Val!acar Transit. Inc. v. Catuhig, 664 Phil._529, 540 (2 0 l I ) .
    Va!lacar Transit. Inc. v. Catubig, supra a! .541 .
    6
    Rollo, p. 14 .

    (96)URES - more -
    Resolution -2- UDK--17107
    February 28, 2022

    prescription and lacl1es. The CA categorically found that Gaudcncia performed


    clear acts of repudiation as the records revealed that she 'had exchided
    7
    f.petitioners I from the use and enjoyment rof the subject lot).' The CA also
    determined that Gaudencia appropriated for herself the proceeds of the harvest
    therefrorn. 8 Notably, respondents have consistently asserted Gaudencia's claim of
    sole ownership of the subject lot, which is itself an act of repudiation of co-
    ownership, fr~m the very beginning of the controversy.9 In the same vein, the CA
    also correctly observed that there arc circumstances in this case which establish
    petitioners' knowledge that Gaudencia was 'holding the property adverse to their
    interest,' IO thereby satisfying lhe requirement that the acts of repudiation should
    have been made known to the other co-owners. Considering that these acts were
    performed at least thirty (30) years before the filing of the complaint in 2011 , 1 1
    Gaudencia had already acquired the subject lot through acquisitive prescription to
    the exclusion of petitioners. Moreover, the CA also correctly ruled that the failure
    of petitioners to
    assert any right over the subject lot over such a long period of
    time already constituted !aches, which is based on the public policy of
    discouraging stale claims. 12 in fact, the CA noted that the respondents did not even
    provide any justifiable reason for their prolonged silence on the issue. 1:s
    Accord ingly, the petition must be dismissed.

    SO ORD.ERED."

    By authority of the Court:

    ',uvv,,-
    UINO TUAZON
    lerk of Court ",J/sb
    3 0 MAR 2022

    7
    Id. at 35 .
    8
    Id.
    9
    See CapiL/e v. Vda de Caban. 475 Phil. 159, 168 (2004).
    10
    Rollo, p. 35.
    11
    Id. at 36-37.
    12
    See Republic v. Sundiam, G.R. No. 23638 1, August 27. 2020, citing n;a111 v. SihinghanoF, G.R. No. L-
    2 1450, April 15. 1968. .
    1
    " Rollo. p. 38.

    (96)URES - more -
    Resolution -PAGE3- UDK-17107
    February 28, 2022

    LUCIDO GAMALLO & CAPAHI LAW FIRM (reg)


    Counsel for Petitioners
    4C, JL Bui lding
    Don Jose Avila comer Don Gil Garcia Sts.
    Capitol Site, Cebu C ity

    PUBLIC ATTORNEY' S OFFICE ( reg)


    Regional Special & Appealed Cases Unit
    3F, Taft Commercial Center
    Metro Colon Carpark, Osmeiia Boulevard,
    Brgy. Kalubihan, 6000 Cebu City

    HON. PRESIDING JUDGE (reg)


    Regional Trial Court, Branch 62
    Oslob, Cebu
    (Appealed Case No. OS- l 6-63A)

    J UDGMENT DIVISION (x)


    Supreme Court, Manila

    PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)


    LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
    [For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-SC]

    OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x)


    OFFICE OF THE REPORTER (x)
    PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY (x)
    Supreme Court, Manila

    COURT OF APPEALS (reg)


    V isayas Station
    Cebu City
    CA-G.R. SP No. 10880

    Please notify the Court of any clza:11e ill your address.


    UDK-17107. 02/28/2022(96) p,f~

    You might also like