G.R. No. L-10058 January 31, 1957
SEVERO ASUNCION and PASCUALA ILUSTRE, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. JUAN BENALISA and LUCIA SUAREZ, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The spouses Severo Asuncion and Pascuala Ilustre filed a complaint to recover real property in Tanay, Rizal, alleging it was acquired by Pascuala Ilustre through a donation proper nuptias made in her favor by Juan Benalisa on August 26, 1927. The defendant spouses admitted executing the donation in favor of Pascuala Ilustre and her first husband, Pablo Benalisa (defendant’s son), but raised a special defense. They alleged that after Pablo Benalisa’s death on June 8, 1929, Pascuala Ilustre lived with Severo Asuncion and that, about twenty years prior, these two attempted against Juan Benalisa’s life, leading him to refuse compliance with the donation. The defendants further asserted they never allowed the plaintiffs to take possession of the donated property and that any right the plaintiffs had was lost due to “their failure to claim the same within the statutory period.” The parties submitted a stipulation of facts confirming the donation’s execution on August 27, 1927, the marriage of Pascuala Ilustre and Pablo Benalisa in September 1927, and Pablo’s death on June 28, 1929. The lower court, without a full trial and based only on memoranda on the donation’s validity, rendered a decision declaring the plaintiffs as owners entitled to possession. The defendants appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in rendering a decision without receiving evidence on the defendants’ defense of prescription, which was based on allegations of their persistent refusal to comply with the donation and prevent plaintiffs’ possession for over twenty years.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court found the decision was rendered on an insufficient basis because no trial was held to receive evidence on the factual allegations supporting the defense of prescription. The defendants’ answer alleged facts suggesting adverse possession and repudiation of any trust for over twenty years prior to the action’s institution. Since the cause of action arose more than twenty years before, prescription was governed by the previously applicable law, specifically Section 40 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure), which sets a ten-year period for actions to recover title to or possession of real property. The lower court’s ruling that prescription did not apply because defendants held the property in trust was untenable given the allegations of refusal and adverse possession. Justice required that the defendants be allowed to prove the facts underlying their prescription defense. The Court did not rule on other questions raised in the appeal.