Commencement of Civil Action

G.R. No. L-17299 (1963) - Cabrera v. Tiano

Paredes, J.

Ciriaco Potestas and 3 of his children sold their property to Tiano on July 2, 1947. Plaintiffs, children of Ciriaco, filed an
action for partition and recovery of land against Tiano on June 20, 1957, but summons was received by Tiano on July 2,
1957. Tiano argues that prescription has already set in since 10 yrs has elapsed from the sale up to the time he received
the summons. SC, citing Art 1155 of NCC, ruled that the prescription has not set in, since it is interrupted upon filing of the
complaint and not upon service of summons.

DOCTRINE
Period of prescription is interrupted upon filing of the complaint regardless of when the service of summons is effected.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Ciriaco and Gregoria Potestas – original owners of land
Josefina Cabrera, Cresencia Omulon – plaintiff-appellees, children of Sps Potestas,
Mariano Tiano – defendant-appellant, 3rd party buyer of land

FACTS
1. Sps. Ciriaco and Gregoria Potestas had 5 children and owned a 7-hectare parcel of agricultural land in Misamis
Occ.Gregoria and one of the children, Clemente, died.
2. July 2, 1947 – Ciriaco and 3 children (Isabelo, Lourdes, Cresencia) sold the land to Mariano Tiano for P3500. At the
time of sale, Cresencia was a minor (16 yrs) while Josefina did not sign the Deed of Sale and did not know about it.
3. June 20, 1957 – (CFI) Action for Partition and Recovery of Real Estate with Damages was filed by Josefina and
Cresencia against Tiano, alleging that they were entitled to a portion of the land as Josefina did not sign the deed and
Cresencia was a minor.
4. Judicial summons was issued by the Clerk of Court on June 21 but received by defendant on July 2, 1957.
5. Defendant’s Answer: Plaintiffs knew of the sale; he was not aware of any defect in title; he was absolute owner by
acquisitive prescription of 10 yrs from the date of sale.
6. CFI ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared them entitled to 1/8 of the property plus damages; ordered the sheriff to
partition the property.
7. MR filed by Tiano contending that prescription had set in and his title had become irrevocable. MR was denied.
8. Hence, Tiano filed an appeal to this Court.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. W/N prescription in favor of appellant Tiano had set in? NO.
Appellant’s contention: Period of prescription should be counted from July 2, 1957 when the summons was
served on him. He cites Art. 1123:
Article 1123. Civil interruption is produced by judicial summons to the possessor.

SC: Art 1155 of the Civil Code provides:

The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extra-judicial
demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt of the debtor.
 Since the sale of the property took place on July 2, 1947, the 10-year period within which to file the action had
not yet elapsed on June 20, 1957, when the complaint was presented.
- Though the sale took place before the effectivity of the NCC, Act no. 190 governing the laws on prescription
that time contained no provisions on the interruption of prescriptive periods.
 The fact that summons was only served on defendant on July 2, 1957, which incidentally was the end of the
10-year period, is of no moment, since civil actions are deemed commenced from date of the filing and
docketing of the complaint with the Clerk of Court, without taking into account the issuance and service of
summons
 Even if Art.1123 is applies, appellant still cannot avail of acquisitive prescription since it does not appear in the
stipulation of facts and there was no finding by the trial court that his possession from the time of sale was with
just title, in good faith, in the concept of owner, public, peaceful, adverse and uninterrupted. Just title must be
proved and never presumed.
 (Procedural) such facts should have been ventilated if the appeal had been taken to the CA, but since appeal
was taken directly to SC, he is deemed to have waived questions of fact and raised only questions of law.
 Moreover, the 10 yr prescription had not yet elapsed on July 2 but only terminated on that very day.

1
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Decision appealed from affirmed.

DIGESTER: Sophia Sy