Director of Lands v. Abelardo

Facts: The case revolves around proving the ownership of 2 parcels of lands, which were properties subject in a successional litigation.  Siblings Fulgencia and Jose Dino are contesting the ownership of subject properties in Manuel Libunao’s possession.  They further claim that as deaf-mutes, they should not be barred by prescription in filing the case.

Issue: Whether or not the prescription period in filing the case should be relaxed due to their being deaf-mutes.

Held: No, they are not.  The SC ruled that the subject lands are still and should still be owned by Manuel Libuano and family due to the following reasons (1) the preponderance of evidence as to the ownership of the lands are in favor of Libunao, (2) the action for filing a claim regarding the partition of the estate has already prescribed.

Being a deaf-mute is not by itself alone, without the concurrence of any of the incapacities recognized by law, considered included among the exceptions which in matters of prescription, are granted to incapacitated persons, in connection with the running of the prescriptive period.