G.R. No. L-5541; June 25, 1955
TEOFILA DE GUINOO, ETC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Bernabe Macansantos and Feliza Enriquez were married in 1907. In 1910, Bernabe acquired a residential lot (Lot No. 127) in Davao City, and the original certificate of title was issued in the name of “Bernabe M. Santos casado con Feliza Enriquez”. Feliza died in 1930. In 1934, Bernabe sold one-half of the lot (subdivided as Lot 127-A) to Teofila de Guinoo. In 1935, he sold the remaining half (Lot 127-B) to the Honganji Mission. Both sales were registered in 1940, and corresponding transfer certificates of title were issued. Bernabe died in 1943. In 1948, the children of Bernabe and Feliza, Lorenzo and Tomas Macansantos, filed complaints to have the deeds of sale declared void, arguing that the lot was conjugal property and, without liquidation and partition of the conjugal partnership after their mother’s death, their father had no right to sell it without their consent. They alleged that Tomas had protested the sale to Teofila and had warned her that the property was owned in common. The cases were jointly heard.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the validity of the sale of Lot No. 127-A by Bernabe Macansantos to Teofila de Guinoo, specifically: (1) whether the property was conjugal, (2) whether the action to annul the sale was barred by prescription, and (3) whether Teofila acquired the land by acquisitive prescription.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed, with modification, the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that Lot No. 127 was conjugal property of Bernabe and Feliza, as it was acquired during their marriage in 1910, and no evidence was presented that it was acquired with Bernabe’s exclusive funds. The action was not barred by prescription; the prescriptive period should be counted from the date of registration of the sale (January 18, 1940), not from the date of the sale deed (1934), as registration constituted notice to all the world, and the plaintiffs, being third parties to the sale, could only have accrued a cause of action upon such registration. The complaint filed in 1948 was within the prescriptive period. Acquisitive prescription does not run against registered land. The sale to Teofila was declared void only as to the one-half share belonging to the children as heirs of their mother. Consequently, the Court modified the judgment, ordering Teofila de Guinoo to reconvey only one-half of Lot No. 127-A to Lorenzo and Tomas Macansantos, consistent with their prayer in the complaint.