G.R. No. 33590 ; February 21, 1931
VICENTA DIMALIWAT, administratrix of the estate of the deceased Eustacio Dimaliwat, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ESPERANZA DIMALIWAT, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Eustacio Dimaliwat was the original owner of a tract of land by virtue of a Titulo de Composicion con el Estado. On January 7, 1901, he executed a deed of donation (Exhibit 3) in favor of his children from his first marriage, Esperanza and Teofilo Dimaliwat. Esperanza took possession and administered the land from 1901. On June 15, 1923, Teofilo assigned his one-half share to Esperanza by a deed (Exhibit 4). In 1928, Eustacio (later substituted upon his death by his daughter Vicenta, administratrix of his estate) filed an action to recover possession, alleging the donation was void for lack of acceptance and was obtained by fraud, and that a subsequent deed of sale to Teofilo was fictitious. Esperanza claimed ownership through the donation and by acquisitive prescription.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant-appellee Esperanza Dimaliwat is the absolute owner of the controverted land.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment declaring Esperanza the owner. The donation (Exhibit 3) was valid. Even assuming a defect in its formal acceptance, such defect was cured by acquisitive prescription, as the donees had possessed the land openly and adversely for over twenty-eight years. The appellant was precluded from challenging the authenticity of Teofilo’s signature on the deed of assignment (Exhibit 4) because her complaint did not allege a theory consistent with such a challenge. The chain of title established Esperanza’s ownership: from Eustacio via the Titulo de Composicion, to the donation to Esperanza and Teofilo, and finally Teofilo’s assignment of his share to Esperanza. The Court also found no error in the denial of the motions for continuance and for new trial.

AI Generated by Armztrong.