Scribd
Upload
379 views2 pages

Lavarro vs. Labitoria Digested by Montejo

This document summarizes a court case from 1930 regarding a land dispute between Sofia Lavarro and members of the Labitoria family. The document outlines that Sofia's first husband borrowed money from a member of the Labitoria family to plant coconut trees on disputed land, with the agreement being that trees would be divided between the parties. Sofia argued in court that she was a co-owner of the land and trees. The court ultimately ruled in Sofia's favor, finding that as trees are considered part of the land, the trees belonged to Sofia as the adjudicated owner of the land, and that any claims made by the plaintiffs were too late due to prescription.

Uploaded by

GLORILYN MONTEJO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
379 views2 pages

Lavarro vs. Labitoria Digested by Montejo

This document summarizes a court case from 1930 regarding a land dispute between Sofia Lavarro and members of the Labitoria family. The document outlines that Sofia's first husband borrowed money from a member of the Labitoria family to plant coconut trees on disputed land, with the agreement being that trees would be divided between the parties. Sofia argued in court that she was a co-owner of the land and trees. The court ultimately ruled in Sofia's favor, finding that as trees are considered part of the land, the trees belonged to Sofia as the adjudicated owner of the land, and that any claims made by the plaintiffs were too late due to prescription.

Uploaded by

GLORILYN MONTEJO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

GLORILYN M.

MONTEJO
PROPERTY LAW
JULY 07, 2021
1:00 – 5:30PM

Lavarro v. Labitoria
54 Phil. 788; July 2, 1930

Facts:

Anastacio Labitoria, died over thirty years ago, was the original owner of a tract of land
divided into three parcels and situated in the barrio of Candelaria, Tayabas. He left four children
namely Franciso, Liberata, Tirso and Eustacio. Franciso acquired the share of others and
nearly became the owner of the land then after his death his children became owners.

Sofia Lavarro is the daughter of Liberata Labitoria, and in 1897, her first husband,
Crispulo Alcantara, borrowed P330.00 from Francisco Labitoria on the condition that
Alcantara should plant 3,300 coconut palms on the land to be divided in equal shares between the
parties, the loan to be paid back by turning over to the creditor 330 coconut palms out of the share
of Alcantara and Sofia. Under this agreement, about 1,700 palms were planted by Alcantara,
but later on, further plantings were made by his wife, Sofia Lavarro.

On October 31, 1916, Macario, Regina, and Bernardo Labitoria and Ariston
Lavarro brought an action against Sofia Lavarro and her then husband, Emeterio Pureza,
for the partition of the land with its improvements. Sofia argued that she was the co-owner of
the land. Sofia Lavarro was awarded 520 coconut trees and 43,391 square meters of land.

She thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court. The present action was initiated by
Sofia Lavarro and her daughters, Apolonia and Isabel Alcantara, on August 15, 1927,
against Regina Labitoria and Marciano Labitoria, the latter as administrator of the estate
of the deceased Macario Labitoria. Sofia filed an amended complaint alleging that she and her
husband have planted greater crops. In an answer, defendants set up res judicata and prescription
as a defense.

Issue:

Whether or not Sofia Lavarro is the lawful owner of the Trees and Fruits adjudicated to the
land.

Held:

Yes. Article 415, Paragraph (2) of the New Civil Code provides that Trees, plants, and
growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or form an integral part of an immovable.
Trees and plants annexed to the land are parts thereof and unless rights or interests in
such trees or plants are claimed in the registration proceedings by others, they become the property
of to whom the land is adjudicated.

By timely proceedings in equity, matters of that character, if fraudulent, may sometimes be


corrected, but in the present case, the plaintiffs Apolonia and Isabel Alcantara did not prosecute their
alleged rights until eleven years after the registration of the property, and it is obvious that
whatever rights they may have had are now lost by prescription.

You might also like