Digest

744 Words3 Pages
Namarco vs. Tecson 29 SCRA 70; No. L-29131 August 27, 1969 Ponente: Concepcion, CJ. Facts: • November 14, 1955: the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 20520 ent itl ed “Price Stabilization Corporation vs. Miguel D. Tecson and Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc.” o Defendants will jointly and severally pay plaintiff PRATRA the sum of P7,200.00 plus 7% interest plus P500.00 for attorney’s fees , and plus costs. o Defendant Miguel Tecson must indemnify Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. • November 21, 1955: A copy of the decision was served upon the defendants. • December 21, 1965: National Marketing Corporation, the successor of Price Stabilization Corporation, filed a complaint, Civil…show more content…
Mariategui v CA 205 SCRA 337 1992 Ponente: Bidin, J. Facts: • Deceased Lupo Mariategui contracted 3 marriages during his lifetime. He died intestate. • Lupo’s descendants by his first and second marriage executed a deed of extrajudicial partition whereby they adjudicated unto themselves Lupo’s property. They were able to secure the registration of the lot. • Lupo’s children by his third marriage filed a complaint stating that they were deprived of their respective shares in the property. They pray f r partition of the estate and the annulment of the deed of extrajudicial partition. • CA held that all heirs of Lupo are entitled to equal shares in his estate. • Lupo’s descendant by the first and second marriages now question the decision. Issues: 1. WON prescription barred respondents’ right to demand partition of the estate of Lupo. 2. WON private respondents who belatedly filed the action for recognition were able to prove their successional rights over said estate. HELD: No / Yes. CA decision affirmed. Ratio: Issue 1 • CA aprtly held that the private respondents are legitimate children of Lupo from his 3rd marriage. • Since respondents were found to be legitimate children and heirs, the time limitation prescribed for filing an action for recognition found in Art 285 of the NCC is inapplicable. •

More about Digest

Open Document