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