It is of note that although the trial court might not

This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 11 pages.

It is of note that although the trial court might not have erred in holding a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses ofprescription andres judicata, it is readily apparent from the decisions of the lower courts that no disquisition whatsoever wasmade on these grounds. It cannot be denied that evidence in support of the ground of "lack of cause of action" was receivedand given great weight by the trial court. In fact, all the evidence given credence by the trial court were only in support of theground of "lack of cause of action." This all the more highlight that the trial court erred in receiving evidence to determinewhether the complaint failed to state a cause of action.Although neither the RTC nor the CA ruled on the affirmative defenses of prescription andres judicata, it appears that thiscase could not have been dismissed on these grounds.First, an action to quiet title is imprescriptible if the plaintiffs are inpossession of the property, which is the situation prevailing in the present case.Second, there appears to be noresjudicatanor a violation of the prohibition against forum shopping considering that Civil Case No. 5487 had been dismissed,without prejudice, years before petitioners initiated their complaint for quieting of title.3 (AQUINO VS QUIAZON - 2015)
D E C I S I O NMENDOZA,J.:Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 13, 2012Decision1of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. 92887, which affirmed the Orders2of the Regional Trial Court(RTC), Angeles City, Branch 59, in SP Civil Case No. 05-076, dismissing the complaint for quieting of title filed by thepetitioners.The FactsOn December 16, 2005, a complaint3for Annulment and Quieting of Title was filed before the RTC-Branch59 by thepetitioners, namely, Leticia Naguit Aquino, Melvin Naguit, Rommel Naguit, Elma Naguit Tayag, Yssel L. Naguit, RosalinaNaguit Aumentado, Rizel Naguit Cunanan, Caridad Naguit Parajas, Millie Naguit Florendo, Marnel Naguit, Eduardo Naguit,Jose Naguit, Zoilo Naguit, and AmeliaNaguit Dizon, represented by Yssel L. Naguit (petitioners). They alleged that they werethe heirs of the late Epifanio Makam and Severina Bautista, who acquired a house and lot situated in Magalang, Pampanga,consisting of 557 square meters, by virtue of a Deed of Sale, dated April 20, 1894; that since then, they and theirpredecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, adverse, and notorious possession for more than a hundred years,constructing houses and paying real estate taxes on the property;that sometime in June 2005, they received various demandletters from the respondents, namely, Cesar B. Quiazon, Amanda Quiazon, Jose B. Quiazon, and Reynaldo B. Quiazon,represented by Jaime B. Quiazon (respondents), claiming ownership over the subject property and demanding that theyvacate the same; that upon inquiry with the Register of Deeds of San Fernando, Pampanga, they confirmed that the propertyhad been titled in the name of respondents under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 213777-R; that the said title was

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 11 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
N/A
Tags
Pleading, Cause of action, Quiet title, Leticia Naguit Aquino

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture