Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 806 views

    Gerona v. de Guzman

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Jorge Sibayan
    Petitioners, the legitimate children of Domingo Gerona and Placida de Guzman, sought to annul an extra-judicial settlement of Marcelo de Guzman's estate executed by respondents, Marcelo's children from his second marriage. Respondents fraudulently claimed to be the sole heirs and had land titles transferred only to themselves. The court found that Placida was a legitimate child and heir of Marcelo. It ruled that the statute of limitations barred the petitioners' claim since more than 4 years had passed since they discovered the fraud when the settlement deed was filed in 1948, but they did not file their complaint until 1958. The action for reconveyance of property based on fraud

    Copyright:

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

    Gerona v. de Guzman

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Jorge Sibayan
    806 views2 pages
    Petitioners, the legitimate children of Domingo Gerona and Placida de Guzman, sought to annul an extra-judicial settlement of Marcelo de Guzman's estate executed by respondents, Marcelo's children from his second marriage. Respondents fraudulently claimed to be the sole heirs and had land titles transferred only to themselves. The court found that Placida was a legitimate child and heir of Marcelo. It ruled that the statute of limitations barred the petitioners' claim since more than 4 years had passed since they discovered the fraud when the settlement deed was filed in 1948, but they did not file their complaint until 1958. The action for reconveyance of property based on fraud

    Original Description:

    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?

    Petitioners, the legitimate children of Domingo Gerona and Placida de Guzman, sought to annul an extra-judicial settlement of Marcelo de Guzman's estate executed by respondents, Marcelo's children from his second marriage. Respondents fraudulently claimed to be the sole heirs and had land titles transferred only to themselves. The court found that Placida was a legitimate child and heir of Marcelo. It ruled that the statute of limitations barred the petitioners' claim since more than 4 years had passed since they discovered the fraud when the settlement deed was filed in 1948, but they did not file their complaint until 1958. The action for reconveyance of property based on fraud

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    806 views2 pages

    Gerona v. de Guzman

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Jorge Sibayan
    Petitioners, the legitimate children of Domingo Gerona and Placida de Guzman, sought to annul an extra-judicial settlement of Marcelo de Guzman's estate executed by respondents, Marcelo's children from his second marriage. Respondents fraudulently claimed to be the sole heirs and had land titles transferred only to themselves. The court found that Placida was a legitimate child and heir of Marcelo. It ruled that the statute of limitations barred the petitioners' claim since more than 4 years had passed since they discovered the fraud when the settlement deed was filed in 1948, but they did not file their complaint until 1958. The action for reconveyance of property based on fraud

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Gerona v.

    De Guzman
    G.R. No. L-19060
    May 29, 1964
    Facts:
    Petitioner Gerona heirs are the legitimate children of Domingo Gerona and
    Placida de Guzman. Placida was a legitimate daughter of Marcelo de Guzman and
    his first wife Teodora de la Cruz. After the death of Teodora, Marcelo married Camila
    Ramos. Their children are herein respondents de Guzman heirs. Marcelo died some
    time in Septermber 1945 and respondents executed a deed of extra-judicial
    settlement of his estate. They fraudulently stipulated therein that they were the
    only surviving heirs of Marcelo although knowing that petitioners were also his
    forced heirs. They were able to cause the transfer the certificates of 7 parcels of
    land each in their names. The petitioners discovered the fraud only the year before
    the institution of the case. Petitioners seek to annul the extra-judicial settlement as
    well as have their shares in the said properties reconveyed to them.
    Defendants argue that Placida de Guzman was not entitled to share in the estate of
    Marcelo as she was an illegitimate child and that the action of the Petitioners is
    barred by the statute of limitations.
    The trial court dismissed the case after finding that Placida was a legitimate child of
    Marcelo and that the properties described herein belonged to the conjugal
    partnership of Marcelo and Camila. It also ruled that Petitioners action had already
    prescribed. The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court
    Petitioners assert that since they are co-heirs of Marcelo, the action for
    partition is not subject to the statute of limitations; that if affected, the period of 4
    years did not begin to run until discovery of the fraud. They claim that the fraud
    done by respondents took place in 1956 or 1957 and that it had not prescribed
    when the present action was commenced.
    Issue:
    WON the action for partition of the latter's estate is not subject to the statute
    of limitations of action
    Held:
    The rule holds true only when the defendants do not hold the property in
    question under an adverse title. The statute of limitations operates from the time
    the adverse title is asserted by the possessor of the property.
    The defendants excluded the petitioners from the estate of Marcelo when
    they executed the deed of extra-judicial settlement claiming that they are the sole
    heirs thus setting up an adverse title to the estate.
    An action for reconveyance of real property based upon a constructive or
    implied trust, resulting from fraud may be barred by the statute of limitations and
    the action may only be filed within 4 years from the discovery of the fraud. In the
    case at bar, the discovery was made on June 25, 1948 when the deed was filed with
    the Register of Deeds and new certificates of title were issued in the names of the

    respondents exclusively. Plaintiffs complaint was not filed until November 4, 1958
    or more than 10 years after.

    You might also like