ACT NO.

3326
ACT NO. 3326 - AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND TO PROVIDE WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN

Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a) after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both; (b) after four years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years; (c) after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or more, but less than six years; and (d) after twelve years for any other offense punished by imprisonment for six years or more, except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe after twenty years. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months. Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act, special acts shall be acts defining and penalizing violations of the law not included in the Penal Code. Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect on its approval.

OBLIGATION AND Prepared by : Evelyn Chua Bergantinos-De Matias

CONTRACTS

Essential elements in the principle of latches: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation that led to the complaint for which the complaint seeks a remedy: (2) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant or the suit is not held barred. Source: Narciso & Maria Buenaventura v CA GR 50837 December 28, 1992 Prescription

A method of acquiring a non-possessory interest in land through the long, continuous use of the land. the method of acquiring an easement upon another's real property by continued and regular use without permission of the property owner for a period of years required by the law of the state Real Property: Ordinary prescription Extraordinary prescription : 10 years : 30 years

Movables / Personal Properties Ordinary prescription : 8 years Extraordinary prescription : 4 years Ordinary Prescription Requirements: - Possession of property (1) in good faith (2) just title Extraordinary Prescription Requirements: - uninterrupted, continuous adverse possession of properties.

PRESCRIPTION PERIOD Cause of Action Nullity of marriage Reconveyance - if resulting from fraud - Torrens title obtained in: - bad faith - passed to innocent buyer Nullity of a void judgment Ordinary Acquisitive Prescription: - immovables - movables Extraordinary Prescription immovables movables Nullity of Falsified Deed of Sale Torrens Titles Prescription imprescriptible 10 years 4 years Imprescriptible Imprescriptible imprescriptible 10 years 4 years 30 8 years imprescriptible Reckoning From the issuance of title. From discovery of fraud -

Imprescriptible but may loseLATCHES unreasonable delay ownership thru latches to bring cause of action. Right to seek partition of land Imprescriptible Not barred by latches when co-ownership is Exception: when co-owner recognized repudiates the ownership, action prescribes in ______. Ejectment 1 year Against Administrative imprescriptible offenses Probate of will imprescriptible Deportation of alien 5 years From date the cause of deportation arose Recovery of purchase price 2 yrs From the date of sale Refund of tax 2 yrs From the date of tax assessment Claim for payment 10 yrs Revocation of donation for 4 years non-compliance of conditions stipulated; Reduction of donation based 4 years on birth, appearance, or adoption of a child From time the donor has Revocation of donation based 1 year knowledge of the fact. on ingratitude Mortgage Action 10 years The moment surety company (properties with Torrens title maypays the bond be foreclosed since right to mortgage can prescribe, for what does not prescribe is the ownership of the land) Demand for right of way imprescriptible Bring action to abate a public imprescriptible or private nuisance Quiet a Title (as long as the imprescriptible plaintiff is in possession of the property) Right to demand support Imprescriptible (installments on support in arrears may prescribe) Action to recover property in Imprescriptible express trust (based on confidence & trust) UNLESS: In view of lack of confidence or fiduciary - may prescribe with latches relations Recovery of registered owner imprescriptible of land with Torrens Title

Upon written contract Rescission of contract Annulment for contract

10 years 4 years 4 years In case of fraud upon discovery thereof; in case of contracts entered by minors/incapacitated from the time guardianship ceases.

Upon obligation created by law 10 years Upon a judgment 10 years (enforcement by writ of execution 5 years) Compensation from employer 10 years Oral contract 6 years Quasi-contract 6 years Upon injury to right of plaintiff 4 years Quasi-delict / tort 4 years From time such is committed Annulment of marriage based 4 years From time fraud, force, etc. on fraud, non-age, force, (Family Code: 5 yrs) cease intimidation Annulment of marriage due to 8 years impotency Forcible entry and detainer 1 year From the time of celebration of the marriage Date of unlawful (forcible entry) Date of detainer) Defamation Legal separation Impugn Legitimacy of child if father/heirs reside in the same place of birth of child if residing in other place within the Phils. if residing abroad 1 year 5 years (Family Code) 1 year 2 years From the time the right of action accrues. May bring action as long as the person lives May bring the action in his lifetime From the date of sale As long as the buyer still in possession of the property From the ceases time guardianship last deprivation (for

demand

Knowledge of cause From recording of birth to the local civil registry

3 years Other actions not fixed by Law 5 years Claim for legitimacy legitimate child of a imprescriptible imprescriptible 2 years imprescriptible

Establishment of illegitimate filiation of illegitimate child Recovery of the purchase price Action of buyer of land to compel seller to execute deed of conveyance Annulment of contract entered by minors or incapacitated persons Forcible entry Forcible detainer

4 years

1 year 1 year

From time of unlawful deprivation and discovery From the date of last demand

PRESCRIPTION- Acquisition Of Property By Prescription

In Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp. v. Panganiban, G.R. No. 151407, February 6, 2007, the SC had the occasion to rule that like other causes of action, the prescriptive period for money claims is subject to interruption, an din the absence of an equivalent Labor Code provision for determining whether the said period may be interrupted, Article 1155 of the Civil Code may be applied, (De Guzman v. CA, 358 Phil. 397 (1998), to wit: ART. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the Court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.

Thus, the prescription of an action is interrupted by (a) the filing of an action, (b) a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor, and (c) a written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. On this point, the Court ruled that although the commencement of a civil action stops the running of the statute of prescription or limitations, its dismissal or voluntary abandonment by plaintiff leaves the parties in exactly the same position as though no action had been commenced at all. (Laureano v. CA, 381 Phil. 403 (2000).

Acquisition of property by laches.

In Sps. Aguirre v. Heirs of Lucas Villanueva, et al., G.R. No. 169898, October 27, 2006, the petitioners have been in possession of a parcel of land for more than 26 years. They declared it for taxation purposes, occupied it, built fences, planted trees and used the same as ingress and egress towards their cottages. The respondent knew all these but they did not lift a finger to bar them from doing so. They waited for 16 years to oust them. Will the action prosper? Why? Held: No. Laches had already set it. Since they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the disputed land in good faith and with a just title since 1971 until 1997, petitioners doubtlessly obtained title by ordinary acquisitive prescription. The action is barred by laches which is defined as the failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length or time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it. This equitable defense is based upon grounds of public policy, which requires the discouragement of stale claims for the peace of society. (Vda. de Rigonan v. Derecho, G.R. No. 159571, July 15, 2005, 463 SCRA 627).

Acquisition of property by prescription.

Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring (or losing) ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under conditions laid down by law, namely, that the possession should be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse. Acquisitive prescription is either ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title for 10 years. Without good faith and just title, acquisitive prescription can only be extraordinary in character which requires uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years. (Heirs of Maningding v. CA, 342 Phil. 567 (1979)). Thus, for ordinary acquisitive prescription to set in, possession must be for at least 10 years, in good faith and with just title. Possession is in good faith when there is a reasonable belief that the person from whom the thing is received has been the owner thereof and could thereby transmit his ownership. (Art. 1127, NCC). There is just title when the adverse claimant comes into possession of the property through any of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but the grantor is neither the owner nor in a position to transmit the right. (Art. 1129, NCC).

HEIRS OF SEGUNDA MANINGDING V. CA | Heirs of BUAZON- Acquisitive Prescription

While prescription among co-owners cannot take place when the acts of ownership exercised are vague and uncertain, such prescription arises and produces all its effects when the acts of ownership do not evince any doubt as to the ouster of the rights of the other co-owners.

FACTS:
This case involved 2 parcels of land: a riceland and sugarland in Pangasinan. The heirs of Segunda claim that they own the disputed lands together with the Buazons. The Buazons aver that: 1. Their father, Roque Buazon, acquired the land by virtue of a deed of donation propter nuptias. 2. Segunda Maningding, Maria Maningding, Juan Maningding and Roque Bauzon co-owned the lands as heirs of Ramon Roque. Roque Buazon allegedly repudiated the co-ownership of the sugarland in 1965 and repudiated it to himself and later on, Juan and Maria Maningding renounced and quitclaimed their shares in the Riceland in favor of R. Buazon. 3. Subsequently, Roque Bauzon transferred the riceland to his son Luis Bauzon and the sugarland to his daughter Eriberta Bauzon (the respondents in this case), both transactions being evidenced by deeds of sale. On 31 July 1979 Segunda Maningding died. Her heirs allegedly discovered the transfers made by Roque Bauzon in favor of his children only in 1986. Consequently, the heirs sought the partition of the properties as well as the accounting of the produce but were unsuccessful. The trial court awarded both parcels to Segunda Maningding and Roque Bauzon as co-owners in equal shares after finding that Juan Maningding and Maria Maningding had already executed an Affidavit of Quitclaim and Renunciation. It rejected the deed of donation for failure to prove its due execution and authenticity and nullified the deed of sale by Roque Buazon to his children. It concluded that Roque Bauzon could not have validly conveyed both parcels as one-half (1/2) of each parcel rightfully belonged to Segunda Maningding and her heirs. The CA reversed the ruling, declaring the donation and sales valid. Later on, the court reversed

itself by declaring the donation void for failure to comply with the necessary requirements. However, it ruled that the properties belonged to Roque Bauzon by virtue of acquisitive prescription.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Roque Bauzon acquired ownership over the subject properties by acquisitive prescription

RULING:
Yes. While prescription among co-owners cannot take place when the acts of ownership exercised are vague and uncertain, such prescription arises and produces all its effects when the acts of ownership do not evince any doubt as to the ouster of the rights of the other co-owners. In the instant case, Roque Bauzon possessed the subject parcels of land in the concept of owner by virtue of the donation propter nuptias. The possession was public as it was Roque Bauzon who personally tilled and cultivated the lots. The acts of reaping the benefits of ownership were manifest and visible to all. These acts were made more pronounced and public considering that the parcels of land are located in a municipality wherein ownership and possession are particularly and normally known to the community. Roque peacefully possessed the properties as he was never ousted therefrom nor prevented from enjoying their fruits. His possession was uninterrupted and in good faith because of his well-founded belief that the donation propter nuptias was properly executed and the grantors were legally allowed to convey their respective shares in his favor. He likewise appropriated to himself the whole produce of the parcels of land to the exclusion of all others. As disclosed by the records, Roque Bauzon and his heirs possessed the property from 1948 to 1986 to the exclusion of petitioners who were never given their shares of the fruits of the properties, for which reason they demanded an accounting of the produce and the conveyance to them of their shares. Unfortunately they slept on their rights and allowed almost thirty-six (36) years to lapse before attempting to assert their right. Perforce, they must suffer the consequence of their inaction. Note: The donation propter nuptias was effected as early as 21 April 1926. It was only in 1986 when the heirs of Segunda Maningding demanded partition of the properties and conveyance of the produce. Sixty (60) years have already elapsed. Even granting that Roque Bauzon possessed the properties only upon the death of his father in 1948, more than thirty (30) years have already passed. In either case, acquisitive prescription has already set in in favor of Roque Bauzon.

REYNANTE V. CA 207 SCRA 794

FACTS:
Petitioner was the tenant over a fishpond. During his tenancy, he constructed a nipa hut and took care of the sasahan. This parcel of land was located between the fishpond and Meycauyan river. After the death of the original landlord, heirs made petitioner sign an agreement surrendering the fishpond for consideration. when he was being asked to leave consequently, he refused to do so.

HELD:
Failure to register the acquired alluvial deposit subjects it to ownership by acquisitive prescription.