This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-04-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A careful examination of the evidence on record shows that Teodulo possessed and occupied Lot No. 379 in the concept of an owner. Since 1929, Teodulo cultivated the controverted land, built his home, and raised his 11 children thereon. In 1957, he filed a homestead application over Lot No. 379 but failed to pursue the same.[33] After his demise, all his 11 children, the youngest being 28 years old,[34] continued to till the land. From 1929 to 1960, Santiago never challenged Teodulo's possession of Lot No. 379 nor demanded or received the produce of said land. For 31 years Santiago never exercised any act of ownership over Lot No. 379. And, in 1960, he confirmed that he is no longer interested in asserting any right over the land by executing in favor of Teodulo a quitclaim. | |||||
|
2006-04-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| On the issue of prescription, the settled rule is that an action for quieting of title is imprescriptible, as in the instant case, where the person seeking relief is in possession of the disputed property. A person in actual possession of a piece of land under claim of ownership may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, and that his undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his title.[40] Considering that petitioners herein continuously possessed Lot No. 379 since 1929 up to the present, their right to institute a suit to clear the cloud over their title cannot be barred by the statute of limitations. | |||||