GR 41056; (November, 1934) (Digest)
G.R. No. 41056 , November 14, 1934
SOFIA PAMITTAN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. GABRIEL LASAM and QUIRINO MALLONGA, defendants. GABRIEL LASAM, appellant.
FACTS
Bernarda Pamittan and Gabriel Lasam were married in 1880. Bernarda died intestate in 1908, leaving no descendants or ascendants. The plaintiffs are her only surviving heirs. During the marriage, the spouses acquired fourteen parcels of land. After Bernarda’s death, Gabriel Lasam filed for registration of title to several parcels, claiming exclusive ownership. The plaintiffs filed an action for partition of the lands. The trial court decreed partition of eleven parcels, declaring two parcels as Gabriel’s exclusive property and one as validly donated to a municipality. Both parties appealed: the plaintiffs contested the finding that one parcel (No. 7) was Gabriel’s exclusive property, and Gabriel appealed, arguing that certain parcels were validly donated and that he had acquired ownership of others by prescription.
ISSUE
1. Whether parcel No. 7 is conjugal property or the exclusive property of Gabriel Lasam.
2. Whether the oral donations of parcels Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13 are valid.
3. Whether Gabriel Lasam acquired ownership by prescription over parcels Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 12.
RULING
1. On parcel No. 7: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that it was Gabriel Lasam’s exclusive property. The evidence, though largely testimonial, showed it was acquired by Gabriel from his father as an advancement on inheritance before or during the early years of marriage, overcoming the presumption that property acquired during marriage is conjugal.
2. On the oral donations: The donations of parcels Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13 were invalid. Under Article 633 of the Civil Code, donations of real property require a public instrument. The absence of such an instrument rendered the donations void, regardless of the donees’ possession.
3. On prescription: Gabriel Lasam could not acquire the subject parcels by prescription. As the surviving spouse, he was a trustee of the conjugal property upon dissolution of the partnership by death. His duty was to liquidate the partnership immediately (desde luego). His possession was not adverse but in a fiduciary capacity, constituting a “continuing and subsisting trust” to which the rules on prescription do not apply. His failure to liquidate precluded him from claiming adverse possession.
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.