STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This is an appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision,
which dismissed Plaintiffs-appellants’ complaint for “Reconveyance and
Partition” against defendants-appellees, dated September 14, 2006 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 5 of Cebu City, in Civil Case No. CEB-25963,

2. Plaintiffs-appellants wants to appeal from this Honorable court thus

enumerating the possible reversible errors committed by the trial Court, as
well as the arguments in support of the findings of such errors.

3. Involved in this litigation is a parcel of land, the conjugal property of the

plaintiff Felisa Codilla Vda. De Ardiente and her late husband Ricardo
Ardiente, now denominated as as Lot No. 16304 or its subdivision Lots Nos.
16304-A, 16304-B, 16304-C containing an area of 52, 732 square meters or
5.27320 hectares previously covered by Tax Declaration number 120150 in
the name of Felisa Ardiente, the plaintiff for the year 1962.

4. It has an assessed value of P62, 750 per Tax Declaration No. 00116 in the
name of defendant Manuel Cabuenas.

5. Ricardo and Felisa Ardiente subsequently tilled and cultivated the land,
until Ricardo’s death in 1961.

6. The land was mortgaged by Felisa Codilla to Agapito Cinco and Manuel
Cabuenas, who were her fellow residents in Barangay by virtue of a
“prenda en dono”.

7. On or about August 10 2000, Felisa Codilla discovered that her tax

declaration was cancelled and a new one was issued in the names of
Agapito Cinco and Manuel Cabuenas, hence the petition.
 SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

6. A complaint for “Reconveyance and Partition” was filed on December 20,

2000, by Plaintiffs-Appellants, Felisa Codilla Vda. De Ardiente and her eight
(8) children, namely Plaintiffs-Appellants Cherry, Ricardo, Jr. Rosalina,
Eduardo, Bienvenida, Juanito, Avelieno, and Narcisa.

7. The case was raffled before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Cebu City,
docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-25963, under the Honorable Presiding Judge
Ireneo Lee Gako Jr.

8. The Honorable Trial Court, on December 20, 2000, dismissed the complaint
for want of a valid cause of action, and similarly, dismissed the counter-
claim for want of evidence.

9. On November 20, 2006, plaintiffs duly filed a Notice of Appeal within the
period for which to file an appeal after its receipt of the said assailed
decision on November 16, 2006.

APPEALED DECISION AND RELEVANT ORDERS AND PLEADINGS

10. The appealed decision and orders issued by the Honorable Trial Court are
as follows:

A. Decision dated September 14, 2006, attached herein as Annex “__”,

which was received by Plaintiffs-Appellants through counsel, on
November 16, 2006.

B. Notice of Appeal dated November 20, 2006 attached herein as Annex

“__” was duly filed with the Honorable Trial Court.
 C. Notice from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5,
Cebu City, to the Chairman of the Court of Appeals, attached herein as
Annex “__”, of the transmittal of the complete records of the case.
Plaintiffs-Appellants, received said Notice through counsel, on
December 19, 2006.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

11. Plaintiffs-Appellants received on November 16, 2006 the Decision of the

Regional Trial Court dated September 14, 2006. A Notice of Appeal was
timely filed on November 20, 2006. Plaintiffs-Appellants received on
February 22, 2020, the Order from the Court of Appeals directing plaintiffs
to file their Appellants Brief within forty-five (45) days from receipt thereof,
or until March 7, 2020. Thus stating that this Appellants’ Brief is seasonably
filed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

12. Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their Complaint “Reconveyance and Partition”on

December 20, 2000. Defendants-Appellees filed their answer on April 10,
2001.

13. Plaintiff, Felisa Codilla, identified her Judicial Affidavit and affirmed and
confirmed the truth and veracity of its contents. Plaintiffs are Felisa Codilla
Ardiente with her 8 children Cherry Ardiente Nable, Ricardo Ardiente Jr.,
Rosalina Ardiente Diacoma, Eduardo Ardiente, Bienvenida Ardiente, Juanito
Ardiente, Avelino Ardiente and Narcisa Ardiente Rabasano.

14. In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the subject land is conjugal
property of Felisa and her husband Ricardo Ardiente who died sometime in
1961. Said property was bought from Icoy Daclan; plaintiffs-appellants have
been in possession thereof since the end of the Second World War.
15. Sometime in 1961, in order to pay for the death anniversary expenses of
Ricardo Ardiente the following year, Felisa Codilla Vda. de Ardiente was
constrained to mortgage the disputed property via a prenda en dono, a kind
of mortgage being practiced in the locality of Barangay Malubog. A prenda
en dono, as a mortgage, has no strict requirement as to form nor does it
have a specific date of redemption.

16. The land was mortgaged by Felisa Codilla to Agapito Cinco and Manuel
Cabuenas, who were her fellow residents in Barangay Malubog, for the
amount of P775.00 for the entire 5.2 hectare property.

17. On or about August 10, 2000, Plaintiff Felisa Codilla Vda. De Ardiente
discovered that the Tax Declaration No. 120150 was cancelled and a new
Tax Declaration No. 120151 in the name of Agapito Cinco and Manuel
Cabuenas was issued in lieu thereof. The copy of the said Tax Declaration
No. 120151 is attached as Annex _ on the records.

18.Upon further inquiry, plaintiffs discovered that the transfer of the tax
declaration Annex __ into the names of the defendants was by virtue of the
deed of absolute sale purportedly executed on March 26, 1962 by Felisa
Codilla to herein defendant Cabuenas. Plaintiff assails that the deed is a
forgery as plaintiff Codilla never sold or executed a deed of absolute sale
covering the property. Assuming, that plaintiff Felisa Codilla Ardiente’s
thumbmark on the deed of absolute sale is genuine, said plaintiff is illiterate
or unlettered and no document was ever explained to her or the terms
thereof understood by her.

19. Sometime in 2002, the Plaintiffs-Appellants attempted to redeem the

disputed property, but the Defendant-Appellee Manuel Cabuenas, who has
since then bought the share of Agapito Cinco, refused to allow the
Plaintiffs-Appellants to do so, contending that he has since become the
absolute owner of the property.

20. The plaintiffs-appellants then formally offered their evidence and rested
their case on August 28, 2003.
21. Defendant- Appelllee Manuel Cabuenas identified his Judicial Affidavit and
affirmed and confirmed the truth and veracity of its contents. Sometime on
March 26, 1962 defendant together with Agapito Cinco bought the
property from Felisa Ardiente believing in good faith and for value that the
lot in question was the paraphernal and exclusive property of Plaintiff Felisa
Codilla.

22. After they bought the property, defendant and Cinco declared the same
under their names as evidenced by Tax Declaration No. 120151 for the year
1962, copy hereto attached on page ___ of the case. On June 5, 1967,
Agapito Cinco sold his share of the land to Manuel Cabuena pursuant to the
Deed of Sale dated June 5, 1967, Tax Declaration No. 120151 in the names
of defendants-appellees was cancelled and Tax Declaration No. GR-2K-01-
009-00 solely in the name of defendant Manuel Cabuenas was issued.

23. Defendant Cabuenas acquired the portion of Agapito Cinco, and from then
on possessed the entire parcel of land in good faith, continuously, publicly,
in concept of owner; he cultivated the same and exclusively enjoyed the
fruits thereto.

24. Defendants-appellee, by way of affirmative defense, posits that they have

acquired the property in good faith not only by a valid public document but
also by prescription; as after the lapse of more than 39 years the plaintiffs
have not made any categorical objection to the ownership and possession
by the defendants over the parcel of land. After more than 39 years of
unexplained inactions, and after the value of the land has substantially
increased cannot anymore assert their claim as they are estopped by
laches.

25. The Defendant-Cabuenas then formally offered his evidence and rested
their case on April 11, 2005 (pages ____ on the record).
26. On November 16, 2006, the Honorable Court issued a decision the
dispositive portion reads:

The dispositive portion of the appealed Decision dated September 14, 2006
states that:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered

dismissing the complaint for want of a valid cause of action. The counter-
claim is also dismissed for want of evidence.”