[G.R. No. 173628 : November 16, 2011]
SEVERINO S. CAPIRAL, PETITIONER, VS. SIMEONA CAPIRAL ROBLES AND VICENTE CAPIRAL, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Assailed in the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the Decision1 dated May 29, 2006 and Resolution2 dated July 20, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 83223. The CA Decision dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari and affirmed the August 15, 2003 and January 12, 2004 Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon City, Branch 74, in Civil Case No. 3430-MN, while the CA Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
The following are the factual and procedural antecedents of the instant case:
The instant petition arose from a Complaint for Partition with Damages filed with the RTC of Malabon City by herein respondents against herein petitioner and five other persons, all surnamed Capiral, whom respondents claim to be their co-heirs.3
On September 5, 2002, herein petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss4 on grounds that respondents' Complaint lacked cause of action or that the same is barred by prescription and laches.
In their Opposition to herein petitioner's Motion to Dismiss, private respondents questioned the factual allegations of petitioner and contended that the property subject of the Complaint for Partition is covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title having been duly registered under the Torrens System and as such may not be acquired by prescription. Private respondents also argued that neither is the principle of laches applicable; instead, the doctrine of imprescriptibility of an action for partition should apply.
On February 21, 2003, the RTC issued an Order holding as follows:
The following are the factual and procedural antecedents of the instant case:
The instant petition arose from a Complaint for Partition with Damages filed with the RTC of Malabon City by herein respondents against herein petitioner and five other persons, all surnamed Capiral, whom respondents claim to be their co-heirs.3
On September 5, 2002, herein petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss4 on grounds that respondents' Complaint lacked cause of action or that the same is barred by prescription and laches.
In their Opposition to herein petitioner's Motion to Dismiss, private respondents questioned the factual allegations of petitioner and contended that the property subject of the Complaint for Partition is covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title having been duly registered under the Torrens System and as such may not be acquired by prescription. Private respondents also argued that neither is the principle of laches applicable; instead, the doctrine of imprescriptibility of an action for partition should apply.
On February 21, 2003, the RTC issued an Order holding as follows:
In the subject motion, defendant-movant [herein petitioner] claimed that prior to the death of their [predecessor-in-interest] Apolonio Capiral, he and his aunt, Arsenia Capiral, who died on 26 November 2002, has been in actual possession of the subject property and has been the one paying for its realty tax; that after the death of Apolonio Capiral, defendant movant "repudiated the co-ownership by permanently residing [in] the said property... " that for more than ten (10) years now, defendant [-movant] has been openly, continuously and exclusively possessing the same in the concept of an owner
