Construction and Interpretation

Cases on Power to Construe

Doroteo Banawa et. al; petitioners

vs.
Maria Mirano et. al; respondents
97 SCRA 517 (1980)

FACTS: Mariano Mirano was taken in by spouses Doroteo Banawa and

Juliana Mendoza treated and reared her up like their own child. On
July 31, 1949 Maria Mirano died of illness and left her nearest
relatives Primitiva Mirano her sister, and children of a deceased
brother Martin Mirano her nearest relatives are now the respondents.
The Spouses Banawa and Mendoza both died during the pendency of this
case and Gliceria Abrenica one adoptive daughter and her spouse is now
the petitioners. The spouses Doroteo Banawa and Juliana Mendoza
bought two parcels of land, the first one Iba property was bought and
named to Maria Mirano by the spouses from Placido Punzalan in 1921
upon failure of the latter to pay the former of obligations amounting
to 4,080 pesos. The second, Carsuche property was bought by the
spouses in 1935 which the Court of Appeals found out was in favor of
Maria Mirano however, in 1940 the same property was sold to the
petitioners. The decision of the lower court and the Court of Appeals
favors the two parcels of land in dispute to the respondents. The
petitioners contend that the there was error in the Court of Appeals’
decision in relation to its interpretation of article 632 of the Old
Civil Code; Section 5 Rule 100 of the Old Rules of Court. That under
Section 40 of the Code of Civil Procedures the petitioners has
acquired acquisitive prescription for the Carasuche Property.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting article
632 of the Old Civil Code and Section 5 Rule 100 of the Old Rules of
Court and thus unjustly forfeited the petitioners’ claim to the Iba
property.
2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the
petitioners’ claim on the Carsuche property pursuant of Section 40 of
the Code of Civil Procedures.

HELD:
1. No. Article 632 of the Old Code provides that: "Donations of
personal property may be made verbally or in writing. Verbal donation
requires the simultaneous delivery of the gift. In the absence of this
requisite the donation shall produce no effect, unless made in writing
and accepted in the same form." The word “Delivery” may be actual or
constructive thus the contention of the petitioners that there was no
simultaneous delivery of the credits to Maria Mirano is not
meritorious. Section 5, Rule 100 of the Old Rules of Court provides
that: “In case of death of the child, his parents and relatives by
nature, and not by adoption shall be his legal heirs, except as to
property received or inherited by the adopted child from either of his
parents by adoption, which shall become the property of the latter or
their legitimate relatives…” The rule pertains to judicially adopted
child, and when the language of law is clear and unequivocal the law
must be taken to mean exactly what it says. The decision of the Court
of Appeals on the Iba property is affirmed.

2. Yes. Section 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides “Period

of prescription as to real estate- An action for recovery of title to,
or possession of real property, or an interest therein, can only be
brought within ten years after the cause of action accrues. The right
to ownership of the petitioners from the time the Carsuche property
was bought in 1940 has already accrued by 1950. The decision of the
Court Appeal on the Carsuche property is reversed.