7/31/2019 PRELIM- Media Law MC AdDU Ramirez vs CA 3

1/1

FACTS

On September 15, 1959, petitioners-spouses Hilario Ramirez and Valentina

Bonifacio filed an application for registration of a parcel of riceland in Rizal. Intheir application for registration, they alleged that to the best of their

knowledge and belief, there is no mortgage or encumbrance of any kind

whatsoever affecting said land and that they had acquired it by purchase from

certain Gregoria Pascual during the early part of the American regime but the

corresponding contract of sale was lot and no copy or record of the same was

available.

The Court found, however, that the applicants are not the owners of the land

sought to be registered. They were ANTICHRETIC CREDITORS- mere

holders placed in possession of the land by its owners as security for loan.

The applicants were found guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation and

concealment when they declared that no other person had any claim or

interest in the said land.

ISSUE

Can an antichretic creditor acquire land of debtor by prescription?

HELD

No.

The petitioners are not possessors in the concept of owners, but mere

HOLDERS placed in possession of land by its owners. Thus, their possession

cannot serve as a title for acquiring dominion. The court, from other cases like

Trillana v. Manansala, Valencia v. Acala and Barretto v. Barretto, held that the

antichretic creditor cannot ordinarily acquire by prescription the land

surrendered to hum by the debtor.

Digest courtesy ofVanessa.

http://www.facebook.com/vanessajeniffer.d.go?ref=searchhttp://www.facebook.com/vanessajeniffer.d.go?ref=searchhttp://www.facebook.com/vanessajeniffer.d.go?ref=searchhttp://www.facebook.com/vanessajeniffer.d.go?ref=search