JosefinaandCresenciaCabreraplaintiffs

vs
MarianoTianodefendant

-No

Facts:

-Since the sale of the property took place on July 2, 1947, the ten (10) year
period within which to file the action had not yet elapsed on June 20, 1957,
when the complaint was presented.

Ciriaco Potestas and Gregoria Blanco, were parents of five children, Isabelo,
Lourdes, Clemente, Josefina and Cresencia. Gregoria died before the second
world war together with Clemente

-The fact that summons was only served on defendant on July 2, 1957, which
incidentally and/or coincidentally was the end of the ten (10) year period, is of
no interruption

-On July 2, 1947, Ciriaco, the surviving husband and three (3) children (Isabelo,
Lourdes and Cresencia) sold the above mentioned parcel to
defendant Mariano T. Tiano

-The contention that the period was not interrupted until after defendant received
the summons is, therefore, without legal basis

-Defendant Tiano alleged that he was the absolute owner of the land by
acquisitive prescription of ten (10) years, from the date of purchase.

-Defendant-appellant claims that he had already acquired full ownership of the

property in question because the judicial summons, which could civilly interrupt
his possession was received by him only on July 2, 1957. Conceding, for the
purposes of argument, that the article cited is applicable, still appellant cannot
avail himself of acquisitive prescription, for the simple reason that no finding
was made by the trial court that his possession from the time of the sale was
with just title, in good faith, in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful,
adverse and uninterrupted.

- Plaintiffs commenced this case against the Defendant and the judicial
summons was issued to Defendant on June 21, 1957 but was received on July 2,
1957

-This Court has to reject, as did the trial court, said defense. Moreover, on July
2, 1957, when the summons was received, the ten (10) years necessary for
acquisitive prescription had not yet elapsed.

-Judgment was rendered declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled each to 1/8 of
the property in question

Doctrine:

-June 20, 1957, an action for "Partition and Recovery of Real Estate, with
Damages" was filed by Josefina and Cresencia the plaintiffs. It was alleged that
they were entitled to a portion of the land, since Josefina did not sign the sale
and Cresencia was a minor that time

-Defendant moved for a reconsideration of the decision,

contending that prescription had already set in
Issue:
W/N Plaintiffs right of ownership to the said land already prescribed
Ruling:

Art. 1155
The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court,
when there is a written extra-judicial demand by the creditors, and when there is
any written acknowledgment of the debt of the
debtor.
Art. 1123
Civil interruption is produced by judicial summons to the possessor.