Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 273 views

    Ramos vs. Ramos Digest

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Macalintal
    This case involved a dispute over the partition of the estate of Martin and Candida Ramos. After their deaths in 1906 and 1880 respectively, their estate consisting of land and cattle was appraised at P74,984.93. In 1906, Rafael Ramos administered the estate and in 1914 a partition project was approved, allocating shares to the 3 legitimate children and 7 natural children. However, 8 lots were registered to Gregoria and her daughter instead of the cash payments allocated in the partition project. The natural children filed suit seeking their shares of the 1/3 free portion of Martin's estate held in those lots. The court dismissed the case, finding the claims were barred by prescription, laches, and res judicata

    Copyright:

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

    Ramos vs. Ramos Digest

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Macalintal
    273 views1 page
    This case involved a dispute over the partition of the estate of Martin and Candida Ramos. After their deaths in 1906 and 1880 respectively, their estate consisting of land and cattle was appraised at P74,984.93. In 1906, Rafael Ramos administered the estate and in 1914 a partition project was approved, allocating shares to the 3 legitimate children and 7 natural children. However, 8 lots were registered to Gregoria and her daughter instead of the cash payments allocated in the partition project. The natural children filed suit seeking their shares of the 1/3 free portion of Martin's estate held in those lots. The court dismissed the case, finding the claims were barred by prescription, laches, and res judicata

    Original Description:

    Ramos vs. Ramos 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?

    This case involved a dispute over the partition of the estate of Martin and Candida Ramos. After their deaths in 1906 and 1880 respectively, their estate consisting of land and cattle was appraised at P74,984.93. In 1906, Rafael Ramos administered the estate and in 1914 a partition project was approved, allocating shares to the 3 legitimate children and 7 natural children. However, 8 lots were registered to Gregoria and her daughter instead of the cash payments allocated in the partition project. The natural children filed suit seeking their shares of the 1/3 free portion of Martin's estate held in those lots. The court dismissed the case, finding the claims were barred by prescription, laches, and res judicata

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    273 views1 page

    Ramos vs. Ramos Digest

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Macalintal
    This case involved a dispute over the partition of the estate of Martin and Candida Ramos. After their deaths in 1906 and 1880 respectively, their estate consisting of land and cattle was appraised at P74,984.93. In 1906, Rafael Ramos administered the estate and in 1914 a partition project was approved, allocating shares to the 3 legitimate children and 7 natural children. However, 8 lots were registered to Gregoria and her daughter instead of the cash payments allocated in the partition project. The natural children filed suit seeking their shares of the 1/3 free portion of Martin's estate held in those lots. The court dismissed the case, finding the claims were barred by prescription, laches, and res judicata

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    RAMOS VS.

    RAMOS
    61 SCRA 284

    FACTS:
    Spouses Martin Ramos and Candida Tanate died on October 4, 1906 and October 26, 1880, respectively. They
    were survived by their 3 children. Moreover, Martin was survived by his 7 natural children. In December 1906, a
    special proceeding for the settlement of the intestate estate of said spouses was conducted. Rafael Ramos, a
    brother of Martin, administered the estate for more than 6 years. Eventually, a partition project was submitted
    which was signed by the 3 legitimate children and 2 of the 7 natural children. A certain Timoteo Zayco signed in
    representation of the other 5 natural children who were minors. The partition was sworn to before a justice of
    peace.

    The conjugal hereditary estate was appraised at P74,984.93, consisting of 18 parcels of land, some head of cattle
    and the advances to the legitimate children. thereof represented the estate of Martin. 1/3 thereof was the free
    portion or P12,497.98. The shares of the 7 natural children were to be taken from that 1/3 free portion. Indeed, the
    partition was made in accordance with the Old Civil code. Thereafter, Judge Richard Campbell approved the
    partition project. The court declared that the proceeding will be considered closed and the record should be
    archived as soon as proof was submitted that each he3ir had received the portion adjudicated to him.

    On February 3, 1914, Judge Nepumoceno asked the administrator to submit a report showing that the shares of
    the heirs had been delivered to them as required by the previous decision. Nevertheless, the manifestation was
    not in strict conformity with the terms of the judges order and with the partition project itself. 8 lots of the
    Himamaylan Cadastre were registered in equal shares in the names of Gregoria (widow of Jose Ramos) and her
    daughter, when in fact the administrator was supposed to pay the cash adjudications to each of them as
    enshrined in the partition project. Plaintiffs were then constrained to bring the suit before the court seeking for the
    reconveyance in their favor their corresponding participations in said parcels of land in accordance with Article
    840 of the old Civil Code. Note that 1/6 of the subject lots represents the 1/3 free portion of martins shares which
    will eventually redound to the shares of his 7 legally acknowledged natural children. The petitioners action was
    predicated on the theory that their shares were merely held in trust by defendants. Nonetheless, no Deed of Trust
    was alleged and proven. Ultimately, the lower court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of res judicata,
    prescription and laches.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the plaintiffs action was barred by prescription, laches and res judicata to the effect that they were
    denied of their right to share in their fathers estate.

    RULING:
    YES, there was inexcusable delay thereby making the plaintiffs action unquestionably barred by prescription and
    laches and also by res judicata. Inextricably interwoven with the questions of prescription and res judicata is the
    question on the existence of a trust. It is noteworthy that the main thrust of plaintiffs action is the alleged holding
    of their shares in trust by defendants. Emanating from such, the Supreme Court elucidated on the nature of trusts
    and the availability of prescription and laches to bar the action for reconveyance of property allegedly held in trust.
    It is said that trust is the right, enforceable solely in equity to the beneficial enjoyment of property, the legal title to
    which is vested in another. It may either be express or implied. The latter ids further subdivided into resulting and
    constructive trusts. Applying it now to the case at bar, the plaintiffs did not prove any express trust. Neither did
    they specify the kind of implied trust contemplated in their action. Therefore, its enforcement maybe barred by
    laches and prescription whether they contemplate a resulting or a constructive trust.
    Email This

    You might also like