Full Text Cases- Land Titles

8/10/2019 Full Text Cases- Land Titles

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/full-text-cases-land-titles 1/30

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 181502 February 2, 2010

FLORENCIA G. DIA , Petitioner,vs.REPU!LIC o" #$e P%ILIPPINES, Respondent.

R S O ! " T I O N

CORONA, J .&

This is a letter#$otion pra%in& for reconsideration 'for the third ti$e( of the )une *+,

-- resolution of this /ourt den%in& the petition for revie0 filed b% petitioner 1lorencia2. Dia3.

Petitioner4s late $other, 1lora 2arcia '2arcia(, filed an application for re&istration of avast tract of land * located in !aur, Nueva ci5a and Pala%an /it% in the then /ourt of1irst Instance '/1I(, 6ranch *, Nueva ci5a on 7u&ust * , *89+. She alle&ed that shepossessed the land as o0ner and 0or:ed, developed and harvested the a&riculturalproducts and benefits of the sa$e continuousl%, publicl% and adversel% for $ore or less

+ %ears.

The Republic of the Philippines, represented b% the Office of the Solicitor 2eneral'OS2(, opposed the application because the land in ;uestion 0as 0ithin the 1ortMa&sa%sa% Militar% Reservation '1MMR(, established b% virtue of Procla$ation No.

<9 'Procla$ation <9( < in *8==. Thus, it 0as inalienable as it for$ed part of the publicdo$ain.

Si&nificantl%, on Nove$ber , *89=, this /ourt alread% ruled in Director of Lands v.Reyes > that the propert% sub5ect of 2arcia4s application 0as inalienable as it for$edpart of a $ilitar% reservation. Moreover, the e?istence of Possessor% Infor$ation Title

No. *+ 'alle&edl% re&istered in the na$e of a certain Melecio Padilla on March =,* 8=(, on 0hich therein respondent Para@a;ue Invest$ent and Develop$ent/orporation anchored its clai$ on the land, 0as not proven. 7ccordin&l%, the decree ofre&istration issued in its favor 0as declared null and void.

Reyes not0ithstandin&, the /1I ruled in 2arcia4s favor in a decision = dated )ul% *,*8 *.

The Republic eventuall% appealed the decision of the /1I to the /ourt of 7ppeals '/7(.In its decision + dated 1ebruar% +, *88 , penned b% )ustice Vicente V. Mendo3a

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181502_2010.html#fnt1














'Mendo3a decision(, 9 the appellate court reversed and set aside the decision of the/1I. The /7 found that Reyes 0as applicable to petitioner4s case as it involved thesa$e propert%.

The /7 observed that 2arcia also traced her o0nership of the land in ;uestion toPossessor% Infor$ation Title No. *+. 7s 2arcia4s ri&ht to the propert% 0as lar&el%dependent on the e?istence and validit% of the possessor% infor$ation title theprobative value of 0hich had alread% been passed upon b% this /ourt in Reyes, andinas$uch as the land 0as situated inside a $ilitar% reservation, the /7 concluded thatshe did not validl% ac;uire title thereto.

Durin& the pendenc% of the case in the /7, 2arcia passed a0a% and 0as substitutedb% her heirs, one of 0ho$ 0as petitioner 1lorencia 2. Dia3. 1avvphi1

Petitioner filed a $otion for reconsideration of the Mendo3a decision. Ahile the $otion0as pendin& in the /7, petitioner also filed a $otion for recall of the records fro$ thefor$er /1I. Aithout actin& on the $otion for reconsideration, the appellate court, 0ith)ustice Mendo3a as ponente , issued a resolution 8 upholdin& petitioner4s ri&ht to recallthe records of the case.

Subse;uentl%, ho0ever, the /7 encoura&ed the parties to reach an a$icablesettle$ent on the $atter and even &ave the parties sufficient ti$e to draft and finali3ethe sa$e.

The parties ulti$atel% entered into a co$pro$ise a&ree$ent 0ith the Republic0ithdra0in& its clai$ on the $ore or less >,+ 8 hectares supposedl% outside the

1MMR. 1or her part, petitioner 0ithdre0 her application for the portion of the propert%inside the $ilitar% reservation. The% filed a $otion for approval of the a$icablesettle$ent in the /7. *-

On )une <-, *888, the appellate court approved the co$pro$ise a&ree$ent. ** On)anuar% * , ---, it directed the !and Re&istration 7d$inistration to issue thecorrespondin& decree of re&istration in petitioner4s favor. *

Ho0ever, actin& on a letter 0ritten b% a certain 7tt%. Restituto S. !a3aro, the OS2 fileda $otion for reconsideration of the /7 resolution orderin& the issuance of the decree of

re&istration. The OS2 infor$ed the appellate court that the tract of land sub5ect of thea$icable settle$ent 0as still 0ithin the $ilitar% reservation.

On 7pril *+, --9, the /7 issued an a$ended resolution 'a$ended resolution( *< annullin& the co$pro$ise a&ree$ent entered into bet0een the parties. The relevantpart of the dispositive portion of the resolution readB

ACCORDINGL', the /ourt resolves toB

'*( ? ? ? ? ? ?

















' ( ? ? ? ? ? ?

'<( ? ? ? ? ? ?

'>( ? ? ? ? ? ?

'=( ? ? ? ? ? ?

'+( RE(ERSE the Resolution dated )une <-, *888 of this /ourt approvin& the 7$icable Settle$ent dated Ma% * , *888 e?ecuted bet0een the Office of theSolicitor 2eneral and 1lorencia 2arcia Dia3C E

'9( ANNUL a)* SET ASIDE the 7$icable Settle$ent dated Ma% * , *888e?ecuted bet0een the Office of the Solicitor 2eneral and 1lorencia 2arcia Dia3the said 7$icable Settle$ent is hereb% DECLARED to be 0ithout force andeffect

' ( GRANT the Motion for Reconsideration filed b% the Office of the Solicitor2eneral and, conse;uentl%, SET ASIDE the Resolution dated )anuar% * , ---0hich ordered, a$on& other $atters, that a certificate of title be issued in thena$e of plaintiff#appellee 1lorencia 2arcia Dia3 over the portion of the sub5ectpropert% in consonance 0ith the 7$icable Settle$ent dated Ma% * , *888approved b% the /ourt in its Resolution dated )une <-, *888

'8( SET ASIDE the Resolution dated )une <-, *888 approvin& the Ma% * , *888 7$icable Settle$ent and the Resolution dated Septe$ber -, *888 a$endin&the aforesaid )une <-, *888 Resolution and

'*-( REINSTATE #$e De+ - o) *a#e* February 2 , 1//2 * - -- ) a 3 +a)#4a e33ee D a 6 re -#ra# o) $ere ).

SO ORD R D.' $phasis supplied(

Petitioner $oved for reconsideration. 1or the first ti$e, she assailed the validit% of theMendo3a decision F the 1ebruar% +, *88 decision adverted to in the /74s a$endedresolution. She alle&ed that )ustice Mendo3a 0as the assistant solicitor &eneral durin&the initial sta&es of the land re&istration proceedin&s in the trial court and thereforeshould have inhibited hi$self 0hen the case reached the /7. His failure to do so, shela$ents, 0or:ed an in5ustice a&ainst her constitutional ri&ht to due process. Thus, theMendo3a decision should be declared null and void. The $otion 0as denied. *>

Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for revie0 on certiorari *= in this /ourt. It 0as deniedfor raisin& factual issues. *+ She $oved for reconsideration. *9 This $otion 0as denied0ith finalit% on the &round that there 0as no substantial ar&u$ent 0arrantin& a$odification of the /ourt4s resolution. The /ourt then ordered that no further pleadin&s











0ould be entertained. 7ccordin&l%, 0e ordered entr% of 5ud&$ent to be $ade in duecourse. *

Petitioner, ho0ever, insisted on filin& a $otion to lift entr% of 5ud&$ent and $otion forleave to file a second $otion for reconsideration and to refer the case to the Supre$e/ourt en banc .*8 The /ourt denied - it considerin& that a second $otion forreconsideration is a prohibited pleadin&. * 1urther$ore, the $otion to refer the case tothe banc 0as li:e0ise denied as the banc is not an appellate court to 0hich decisionsor resolutions of the divisions $a% be appealed. Ae reiterated our directive that nofurther pleadin&s 0ould be entertained and that entr% of 5ud&$ent be $ade in duecourse.

Not one to be easil% deterred, petitioner 0rote identical letters, first addressed to)ustice !eonardo 7. Guisu$bin& 'then 7ctin& /hief )ustice( and then to /hief )usticeRe%nato S. Puno hi$self. < The bod% of the letter, undoubtedl% in the nature of a third$otion for reconsideration, is hereb% reproduced in its entiret%B

This is in response to %our call for Moral 1orces in order to redirect the destin% of our countr% 0hich is sufferin& fro$ $oral decadence, that to %our $ind, is the proble$0hich confronts us. 'In;uirer, )anuar% *=, --8, pa&e *(C.E

I recentl% lost $% case 0ith the Supre$e /ourt, 2.R. NCoE. * *=- , and $% la0%er hasdone all that is hu$anl% possible to convince the court to ta:e a second loo: at the$iscarria&e of 5ustice that 0ill result fro$ the i$ple$entation of the DISMISS7! in aMIN"T R SO!"TION of our Petition for Revie0.

Pe)* ) be"ore your D 7 - o) F r-# D 7 - o)9 - a 3a-# 3ea "or :u-# +e -o #$a# #$e+a-e ay be e3e7a#e* #o #$e Su re e Cour# en banc . I $o e #$e Cour# e;er+ -e-u# o-# ru*e)+e ) re-o37 ) #$e 3a-# 3ea. For rea*y re"ere)+e, a +o y o" #$eMo# o) - $ere#o a##a+$e* a- A))e; <A<.

The issue that 0as brou&ht before the Honorable Supre$e /ourt involves the Decisionof then )ustice Vicente Mendo3a of the /ourt of 7ppeals, 0hich is N"!! and VOID, abinitio.

It is null and void because destin% placed Hon. )ustice Vicente Mendo3a in a position

in 0hich it beca$e possible for hi$ to dischar&e the $ini$u$ re;uire$ent of dueprocess, C i.e .E the abilit% of the court to render i$partial 5ustice, because Mr. )usticeMendo3a beca$e the ponente of the /ourt of 7ppeals Decision, reversin& the findin&sof the trial court, not0ithstandin& the fact that he, as 7ssistant Solicitor 2eneral, 0asthe ver% person 0ho appeared on behalf of the Republic, as the oppositor in the ver%sa$e land re&istration proceedin&s in 0hich he lost.

In other 0ords, he dischar&ed the duties of prosecutor and 5ud&e in the ver% sa$ecase.















In the case of the 7laban& 6o%sC,E the public 0as outra&ed b% the actions of 7tt%.Verano 0ho ad$itted havin& prepared a si$ple resolution to be si&ned b% theSecretar% of )ustice.

In $% case, the act co$plained of is the 0orst :ind of violation of $% constitutionalri&ht. It is si$pl% i$$oral, ille&al and unconstitutional, for the prosecutor to eventuall%act as the 5ud&e, and reverse the ver% decision in 0hich he had lost.

If lea:ed to the tri#$ediaC,E $% case 0ill certainl% evo:e even &reater spite fro$ thepublic, and put the Supre$e /ourt in bad li&ht. I $ust confess that I 0as te$pted topursue such course of action. I ho0ever believe that such an action 0ill do $ore har$than &ood, and even destro% the &ood na$e of Hon. )ustice Mendo3a.

I full% support %our call for $oral force that 0ill slo0l% and eventuall% lead our countr%to redirect its destin% and escape fro$ this $oral decadence, in 0hich 0e all findourselves.

I a$ content 0ith the fact that at least, the /hief )ustice continues to fi&ht the dar:forces that surround us ever%da%.

I onl% as: that the Supre$e /ourt endeavor to ensure that cases such as $ine do nothappen a&ain, so that the ne?t person 0ho see:s 5ustice 0ill not e?perience the painand frustration that I suffered under our 5udicial s%ste$.

Than: %ou, and $ore po0er to %ou, SIR. ' $phasis in the ori&inal(.

The lan&ua&e of petitioner4s letter $otion is un$ista:able. It is a thinl% veiled threatprecisel% 0orded and calculated to inti$idate this /ourt into &ivin& in to her de$andsto honor an other0ise le&all% infir$ co$pro$ise a&ree$ent, at the ris: of bein& vilifiedin the $edia and b% the public.

This /ourt 0ill not be co0ed into sub$ission. Ae den% petitioner4s letter third $otionfor reconsideration.

APPLICA!ILIT' OF REYES

The /ourt a&rees 0ith the Republic4s position that Reyes is applicable to this case.

To constitute res judicata , the follo0in& ele$ents $ust concurB

'*( the for$er 5ud&$ent or order $ust be final

' ( the 5ud&$ent or order $ust be on the $erits

'<( it $ust have been rendered b% a court havin& 5urisdiction over the sub5ect$atter and parties and



'>( there $ust be bet0een the first and second actions, identit% of parties, ofsub5ect $atter, and of causes of action. >

The first three re;uisites have undoubtedl% been co$plied 0ith. Ho0ever, petitionerta:es e?ception to the fourth re;uisite, particularl% on the issue of identit% of parties. Inher petition for revie0 filed in this /ourt, she contends that since the applicants in thet0o cases are different, the $erits of the t0o cases should, accordin&l%, be deter$inedindependentl% of each other. =

This contention is erroneous.

The facts obtainin& in this case closel% rese$ble those in Aquino v. Director of Lands . +

In that case, Guintin Ta@edo endeavored to secure title to a considerable tract of landb% virtue of his possession thereof under /7 *>*. Ahen the case eventuall% reachedthis /ourt, 0e affir$ed the trial court4s decision to dis$iss the proceedin&s as thepropert% in ;uestion 0as part of the public do$ain. Guintin4s successor#in#interest,1lorencia Ta@edo, 0ho despite :no0led&e of the proceedin&s did not participatetherein, thereafter sold the sa$e propert% to 6eni&no S. 7;uino. The latter sou&ht tohave it re&istered in his na$e. The ;uestion in that case, as 0ell as in this one, 0as0hether our decision in the case in 0hich another person 0as the applicant constitutedres judicata as a&ainst his successors#in#interest.

Ae ruled there, and 0e so rule no0, that in re&istration cases filed under the provisionsof the Public !and 7ct for the 5udicial confir$ation of an inco$plete and i$perfect title,an order dis$issin& an application for re&istration and declarin& the land as part of thepublic do$ain constitutes res judicata , not onl% a&ainst the adverse clai$ant, but also

a&ainst a33 persons.9

Ae also declared in Aquino thatB

1ro$ another point of vie0, the decision in the first action has beco$e the la0 of thecase or at least falls 0ithin the rule of stare decisis . That ad5udication should befollo0ed unless $anifestl% erroneous. It 0as ta:en and should be ta:en as theauthoritative vie0 of the hi&hest tribunal in the Philippines. It is indispensable to thedue ad$inistration of 5ustice especiall% b% a court of last resort that a ;uestion oncedeliberatel% e?a$ined and decided should be considered as settled and closed to

further ar&u$ent. ? ? ?

6e that as it $a%, the fact is that, even before the /1I ca$e out 0ith its decision infavor of petitioner on )ul% *, *8 *, this /ourt, in Reyes , alread% $ade an earlier rulin&on Nove$ber , *89= that the disputed realt% 0as inalienable as it for$ed part of a$ilitar% reservation. Thus, petitioner4s ar&u$ent that the findin&s of fact of the trial courton her re&istrable title are bindin& on us F on the principle that findin&s of fact of lo0ercourts are accorded &reat respect and bind even this /ourt F is untenable. Rather, it













0as incu$bent upon the court a quo to respect this /ourt4s rulin& in Reyes , and not theother 0a% around.

Ho0ever, despite havin& been apprised of the /ourtJs findin&s in Reyes '0hich shouldhave been a $atter of 5udicial notice in the first place(, the trial court still insisted on itsdiver&ent findin& and disre&arded the /ourtJs decision in Reyes, declarin& the sub5ectland as for$in& part of a $ilitar% reservation, and thus outside the co$$erce of $an.

6% not appl%in& our rulin& in Reyes , the trial 5ud&e virtuall% nullified the decision of this/ourt and therefore acted 0ith &rave abuse of discretion. 8 Notabl%, a 5ud&$entrendered 0ith &rave abuse of discretion is void and does not e?ist in le&alconte$plation. <-

7ll lo0er courts, especiall% the trial court concerned in this case, ou&ht to be re$indedthat it is their dut% to obe% the decisions of the Supre$e /ourt. 7 conduct beco$in& ofinferior courts de$ands a conscious a0areness of the position the% occup% in theinterrelation and operation of our 5udicial s%ste$. 7s elo;uentl% declared b% )ustice ).6.!. Re%es, There is onl% one Supre$e /ourt fro$ 0hose decision all other courtsshould ta:e their bearin&s. <*

AC=UISITION OF PRI(ATE RIG%TS

Petitioner, ho0ever, ar&ues that Procla$ation <9 itself reco&ni3es that its effectivit% issub5ect to private ri&hts, if an% there be.

6% 0a% of a bac:&round, 0e reco&ni3ed in Reyes that the propert% 0here the $ilitar%reservation is situated is forest land. ThusB

6efore the $ilitar% reservation 0as established, the evidence is inconclusive as topossession, for it is sho0n b% the evidence that the land involved is lar&el%$ountainous and forested. 7s a $atter of fact, a# #$e # e o" #$e $ear ) , # >a-+o)+e*e* #$a# appro?i$atel% *<,8=9 hectares of -a * 3a)* +o)- -# o" ub3 + "ore-#. ? ? ? ' $phasis supplied( <

/onco$itantl%, 0e stated therein, and 0e re$ind petitioner no0, that forest lands arenot re&istrable under /7 *>*.

C Even $ore i$portant, Section > CbE of /7 No. *>*, as a$ended, applies e?clusivel%to public a&ricultural land. 1orest lands or area covered 0ith forest are e?cluded. I# ->e334-e##3e* #$a# "ore-# 3a)* - )+a ab3e o" re -#ra# o)? a)* #- )+3u- o) ) a# #3e, >$e#$er -u+$ # #3e be o)e --ue* u- ) #$e S a) -$ -o7ere )#y or u)*er#$e re-e)# Torre)- -y-#e o" re -#ra# o), )u33 " e- #$e # #3e. ' $phasissupplied(. <<

Ho0ever, it is true that forest lands $a% be re&istered 0hen the% have beenreclassified as alienable b% the President in a clear and cate&orical $anner 'upon the













reco$$endation of the proper depart$ent head 0ho has the authorit% to classif% thelands of the public do$ain into alienable or disposable, ti$ber and $ineral lands( <> coupled 0ith possession b% the clai$ant as 0ell as that of her predecessors#in#interest."nfortunatel% for petitioner, she 0as not able to produce such evidence. 7ccordin&l%,her occupation thereof, and that of her predecessors#in#interest, could not haveripened into o0nership of the sub5ect land. This is because prior to the conversion offorest land as alienable land, an% occupation or possession thereof cannot be countedin rec:onin& co$pliance 0ith the thirt%#%ear possession re;uire$ent under/o$$on0ealth 7ct *>* '/7 *>*( or the Public !and 7ct. <= This 0as our rulin& in

Almeda v. CA .<+ The rules on the confir$ation of i$perfect titles do not appl% unlessand until the land classified as forest land is released throu&h an official procla$ationto that effect. Then and onl% then 0ill it for$ part of the disposable a&ricultural lands ofthe public do$ain. <9

/o$in& no0 to petitioner4s contention that her private ri&hts to the propert%, $eanin&her and her predecessors4 possession thereof prior to the establish$ent of the 1MMR,

$ust be respected, the sa$e is untenable. 7s earlier stated, e had alreadyreco!ni"ed the same land to be public forest even before the #MMR as established .To reiterateB

6efore the $ilitar% reservation 0as established, the evidence is inconclusive as topossession, for it is sho0n b% the evidence that the land involved is lar&el%$ountainous and forested. 7s a $atter of fact, at the ti$e of the hearin&, it 0asconceded that appro?i$atel% *<,8=9 hectares of said land consist of public forest. ? ? ?

Therefore, even if possession 0as for $ore than <- %ears, it could never ripen to

o0nership.

6ut even assu$in& that the land in ;uestion 0as alienable land before it 0asestablished as a $ilitar% reservation, there 0as nevertheless still a dearth of evidence0ith respect to its occupation b% petitioner and her predecessors#in#interest for $orethan <- %ears. In Reyes , 0e notedB

videntl%, Melecio Padilla, havin& died on 1ebruar% 8, *8--, barel% five '=( %ears afterthe inscription of the infor$acion possessoria, could not have converted the sa$e intoa record of o0nership t0ent% ' -( %ears after such inscription, pursuant to 7rticle <8<of the Spanish Mort&a&e !a0.

? ? ?

Durin& the lifeti$e of Melecio Padilla, onl% a s$all portion thereof 0as cleared andcultivated under the K:ain&in4 s%ste$, 0hile so$e portions 0ere used as &ra3in& land.

7fter his death, his dau&hter, Maria Padilla, caused the plantin& of ve&etables and hadabout fort% '>-( tenants for the purpose. Durin& the )apanese occupation, Maria Padilladied. ? ? ?











? ? ?

7 $ere casual cultivation of portions of the land b% the clai$ant, and the raisin&thereon of cattle, do not constitute possession under clai$ of o0nership. In that sense,possession is not e?clusive and notorious as to &ive rise to a presu$ptive &rant fro$the State. Ahile &ra3in& livestoc: over land is of course to be considered 0ith otheracts of do$inion to sho0 possession, the $ere occupanc% of land b% &ra3in& livestoc:upon it, 0ithout substantial inclosures, or other per$anent i$prove$ents, is notsufficient to support a clai$ of title thru ac;uisitive prescription. The possession ofpublic land, ho0ever lon& the period $a% have e?tended, never confers title theretoupon the possessor because the statute of li$itations 0ith re&ard to public land doesnot operate a&ainst the State unless the occupant can prove possession andoccupation of the sa$e under clai$ of o0nership for the re;uired nu$ber of %ears toconstitute a &rant fro$ the State. <

? ? ?

1urther$ore, the fact that the possessor% infor$ation title on 0hich petitioner alsobases her clai$ of o0nership 0as found to be ine?istent in Reyes ,<8 thus renderin& itsprobative value suspect, further $ilitates a&ainst &rantin& her application forre&istration.

NULLIT' OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

On the co$pro$ise a&ree$ent bet0een the parties, 0e a&ree 0ith the /7 that thesa$e 0as null and void.

7n a$icable settle$ent or a co$pro$ise a&ree$ent is in the nature of a contract and$ust necessaril% co$pl% 0ith the provisions of 7rticle *<* of the Ne0 /ivil /ode0hich providesB

7rt. *<* . There is no contract unless the follo0in& re;uisites concurB

'*( /onsent of the contractin& parties

' ( Ob5ect certain 0hich is the sub5ect $atter of the contract

'<( /ause of the obli&ation 0hich is established.

Petitioner 0as not able to provide an% proof that the consent of the Republic, throu&hthe appropriate &overn$ent a&encies, i.e. the Depart$ent of nviron$ent and NaturalResources, !and Mana&e$ent 6ureau, !and Re&istration 7uthorit%, and the Office ofthe President, 0as secured b% the OS2 0hen it e?ecuted the a&ree$ent 0ith her. >- The lac: of authorit% on the part of the OS2 rendered the co$pro$ise a&ree$entbet0een the parties null and void because althou&h it is the dut% of the OS2 torepresent the State in cases involvin& land re&istration proceedin&s, it $ust do so onl%









0ithin the scope of the authorit% &ranted to it b% its principal, the Republic of thePhilippines. >*

In this case, althou&h the OS2 0as authori3ed to appear as counsel for respondent, it0as never &iven the specific or special authorit% to enter into a co$pro$ise a&ree$ent0ith petitioner. This is in violation of the provisions of Rule *< Section <, of the Rulesof /ourt 0hich re;uires special authorit% for attorne%s to bind their clients.

Section <. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. $ 7ttorne%s have authorit% to bindtheir clients in an% case b% an% a&ree$ent in relation thereto $ade in 0ritin&, and inta:in& appeals, and in all $atters of ordinar% 5udicial procedure. !u# #$ey +a))o#,> #$ou# - e+ a3 au#$or #y, +o ro -e #$e r +3 e)#6- 3 # a# o), or receive an%thin&in dischar&e of a client4s clai$ but the full a$ount in cash. ' $phasis supplied(.

Moreover, the land in ;uestion could not have been a valid sub5ect $atter of a contractbecause, bein& forest land, it 0as inalienable. 7rticle *<>9 of the /ivil /ode providesB

7rt. *<>9. A33 #$ ) - >$ +$ are )o# ou#- *e #$e +o er+e o" e), )+3u* ) "u#ure#$ ) -, ay be #$e ob:e+# o" a +o)#ra+#. 7ll ri&hts 0hich are not intrans$issible $a%also be the ob5ect of contracts.

No contract $a% be entered into upon future inheritance e?cept in cases e?pressl%authori3ed b% la0.

7ll services 0hich are not contrar% to la0, $orals, &ood custo$s, public order or publicpolic% $a% li:e0ise be the ob5ect of a contract. ' $phasis supplied(

1inall%, the /ourt finds the cause or consideration of the obli&ation contrar% to la0 anda&ainst public polic%. The a&ree$ent provided that, in consideration of petitioner4s0ithdra0al of her application for re&istration of title fro$ that portion of the propert%located 0ithin the $ilitar% reservation, respondent 0as 0ithdra0in& its clai$ on thatpart of the land situated outside said reservation. The Republic could not validl% enterinto such underta:in& as the sub5ect $atter of the a&ree$ent 0as outside theco$$erce of $an.

PETITIONER6S CONTEMPT OF COURT

This /ourt, bein& the ver% institution that dispenses 5ustice, cannot reasonabl% bee?pected to 5ust sit b% and do nothin& 0hen it co$es under attac:.

That petitioner4s letter#$otion constitutes an attac: a&ainst the inte&rit% of this /ourtcannot be denied. Petitioner started her letter innocentl% enou&h b% statin&B

This is in response to %our call for Moral 1orces in order to redirect the destin% of our countr% 0hich is sufferin& fro$ $oral decadence, that to %our $ind, is the proble$0hich confronts us. 'In;uirer, )anuar% *=, --8, pa&e *(C.E





It, ho0ever, ;uic:l% pro&ressed into a barel% concealed resent$ent for 0hat sheperceived as this /ourt4s failure to e?ercise ut$ost prudence in renderin& i$partial

5ustice in decidin& her case. Petitioner recountedB

I recentl% lost $% case 0ith the Supre$e /ourt, 2.R. NCoE. * *=- , and $% la0%er hasdone all that is hu$anl% possible to convince the court to ta:e a second loo: at the

-+arr a e o" :u-# +e #$a# > 33 re-u3# "ro #$e 3e e)#a# o) o" #$e DISMISSAL) a MINUTE RESOLUTION o" our Pe# # o) for Revie0.

Pe)* ) be"ore your D 7 - o) F r-# D 7 - o)9 - a 3a-# 3ea "or :u-# +e -o #$a# #$e+a-e ay be e3e7a#e* #o #$e Su re e Cour# en banc . I hope the Court exercisesutmost prudence in resolving the last plea. For rea*y re"ere)+e, a +o y o" #$eMo# o) - $ere#o a##a+$e* a- A))e; <A<.

The issue that 0as brou&ht before the Honorable Supre$e /ourt involves the Decisionof then )ustice Vicente Mendo3a of the /ourt of 7ppeals, 0hich is N"!! and VOID, abinitio.

It is null and void because destin% placed Hon. )ustice Vicente Mendo3a in a positionin 0hich it beca$e possible for hi$ to dischar&e the $ini$u$ re;uire$ent of dueprocess, C i.e .E the abilit% of the court to render "impartial justice," because Mr. )usticeMendo3a beca$e the ponente of the /ourt of 7ppeals Decision, reversin& the findin&sof the trial court, not0ithstandin& the fact that he, as 7ssistant Solicitor 2eneral, 0asthe ver% person 0ho appeared on behalf of the Republic, as the oppositor in the ver%sa$e land re&istration proceedin&s in 0hich he lost. ' $phasis supplied(.

Petitioner then indirectl% hints that, 0hen push co$es to shove, she has no choice butto e?pose the irre&ularit% concernin& the Mendo3a decision to the $edia. This isevident in her arro&ant declaration thatB

If lea:ed to the tri#$ediaC,E $% case 0ill certainl% evo:e even &reater spite fro$ thepublic, and put the Supre$e /ourt in bad li&ht.

6ut she hastens to add in the sa$e breath thatB

I $ust confess that I 0as te$pted to pursue such course of action. I ho0ever believe

that such an action 0ill do $ore har$ than &ood, and even destro% the &ood na$e ofHon. )ustice Mendo3a.

Petitioner ends her letter b% ta:in& this /ourt to tas:B

. . . endeavor to ensure that cases such as $ine do not happen a&ain, so that the ne?tperson 0ho see:s 5ustice 0ill not e?perience the pain and frustration that I sufferedunder our 5udicial s%ste$.



Ahen re;uired to sho0 cause 0h% she should not be cited for conte$pt for herbaseless char&es and veiled threats, petitioner ans0eredB

? ? ?

The !etter of )anuar% +, --8 is not a veiled threatC.E It 0as 0ritten in response to thecall of the /hief )ustice for a $oral revolution. )u?taposed a&ainst the factual bac:drop

of the 7laban& 6o%s case and the Meralco CcEase, involvin& Mr. )ustice )ose !. Sabio0hich also en5o%ed 0ide publicit% over the tri#$edia, petitioner felt that the facts of thesaid cases pale in co$parison to the facts of her case 0here the la0%er of heropponent eventuall% beca$e 5ustice of the appellate court and ended up reversin& thever% decision in 0hich he lost, in clear violation of her CcEonstitutional CrEi&ht tofunda$ental fair pla% F for no contestant in an% liti&ation can ever serve as a 5ud&e0ithout trans&ression of the due process clause. This is basic.

Petitioner confesses that she $a% have been e$otional in the deliver% of her piece,because correctl% or incorrectl%C,E she believes the% are irrefutable. If in the course ofthat e$otional deliver%, she has offended %our honors4 sensibilities, she is read% for thepunish$ent, and onl% pra%s that his /ourt te$per its stri:e 0ith co$passion F as herletter to the /hief )ustice 0as never 0ritten 0ith a vie0 of threatenin& the /ourt.

? ? ?

Petitioner 0rote the /hief )ustice in order to obtain redress and correction of theine;uit% besto0ed upon her b% destin%. It 0as never $eant as a threat.

The /ourt no0 puts an end to petitioner4s irresponsible insinuations and threats of&oin& public 0ith this case. Ae are not blind to petitioner4s clever and fo?% interpla% of

threats alternatin& 0ith false concern for the reputation of this /ourt.

It is 0ell to re$ind petitioner that the /ourt has consistentl% rendered 5ustice 0ithneither fear nor favor. The disposition in this case 0as arrived at after a careful andthorou&h deliberation of the facts of this case and all the $atters pertainin& thereto.The records of the case, in fact, sho0 that all the pertinent issues raised b% petitioner0ere passed upon and sufficientl% addressed b% the appellate court and this /ourt intheir respective resolutions.

7s to petitioner4s co$plaint re&ardin& this /ourt4s denial of her petition throu&h a $ere$inute resolution '0hich alle&edl% deprived her of due process as the /ourt did notissue a full#blo0n decision statin& the facts and applicable 5urisprudence(, suffice it tosa% that the /ourt is not dut%#bound to issue decisions or resolutions si&ned b% the

5ustices all the ti$e. It has a$ple discretion to for$ulate ponencias , e?tendedresolutions or even $inute resolutions issued b% or upon its authorit%, dependin& on itsevaluation of a case, as lon& as a le&al basis e?ists. Ahen a $inute resolution 'si&nedb% the /ler: of /ourt upon orders of the /ourt( denies or dis$isses a petition or $otion



for reconsideration for lac: of $erit, it is understood that the assailed decision or order,to&ether 0ith all its findin&s of fact and le&al conclusions, are dee$ed sustained. >

1urther$ore, petitioner has do&&edl% pursued her case in this /ourt b% filin& threesuccessive $otions for reconsideration, includin& the letter#$otion sub5ect of thisresolution. This, despite our repeated 0arnin&s that no further pleadin&s shall beentertained in this case. Her unreasonable persistence constitutes utter defiance ofthis /ourt4s orders and an abuse of the rules of procedure. This, alon&side her thinl%veiled threats to lea: her case to the $edia to &ain public s%$path% F althou&h thetone of petitioner4s co$pliance 0ith our sho0#cause resolution 0as decidedl% subduedco$pared to her earlier letters F constitutes conte$pt of court.

In Republic v. %nime& ,>< 0e heldB

7 state$ent of this /ourt that no further pleadin&s 0ould be entertained is adeclaration that the /ourt has alread% considered all issues presented b% the partiesand that it has ad5udicated the case 0ith finalit%. It is a directive to the parties to desistfro$ filin& an% further pleadin&s or $otions. !i:e all orders of this /ourt, it $ust bestrictl% observed b% the parties. It should not be circu$vented b% filin& $otions ill#dis&uised as re;uests for clarification.

A FE@ O!SER(ATIONS

If petitioner 0as, as she ada$antl% insists, onl% &uardin& her constitutional ri&ht to dueprocess, then 0h% did she ;uestion the validit% of the Mendo3a decision late in theproceedin&s, that is, onl% after her $otion for reconsideration in the /7 'for its

subse;uent annul$ent of the co$pro$ise a&ree$ent( 0as deniedL It is obvious that it0as onl% 0hen her case beca$e hopeless that her present counsel franticall%searched for so$e &round, an% &round to resuscitate his client4s lost cause,subse;uentl% raisin& the issue. This is evident fro$ a state$ent in her petition to this/ourt thatB

I# - #$ - "re-$ * -+o7ery by #$e u)*er- )e* +ou)-e3 o" #$e )u33 #y o" #$ero+ee* ) - o" #$e Cour# o" A ea3- that places in doubt the entire proceedin&s it

previousl% conducted, 0hich led to the rendition of the 1ebruar% +, *88 Decision, a"a+# #$a# e-+a e* #$e -+ru# )y o" a 3 +a)# "or re -#ra# o) F3ora L. Gar+ a, a- >e33

a- $er 3a>yer, A##y. Caye#a)o Da)#e D a , 0ho died in *88<, a)* #$e 3a#e u-# +eFer)a)*o A. Sa)# a o, >$o -#oo* a- +ou)-e3 "or 1lora !. 2arcia4s successor#in#interest, $ere ) e# # o)er, F3ore)+ a G. Gar+ a. >> ' $phasis supplied(.

The above cited state$ent does not help petitioner4s cause at all. If an%thin&, it onl%proves ho0 desperate the case has beco$e for petitioner and her counsel.

@%EREFORE, the letter#$otion dated )anuar% +, --8 of petitioner is NOTED and ishereb% treated as a third $otion for reconsideration. The $otion is DENIED









considerin& that a third $otion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleadin& and the pleautterl% lac:s $erit.

Petitioner is found GUILT' of conte$pt of court. 7ccordin&l%, a FINE of 1ive ThousandPesos is hereb% i$posed on her, pa%able 0ithin ten da%s fro$ receipt of this resolution.She is hereb% @ARNED that an% repetition hereof shall be dealt 0ith $ore severel%.

Treble costs a&ainst petitioner.

SO ORDERED.




Manila

S /OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 1B /51 De+e ber 1B, 200/

ARSENIO OLEGARIO a)* %e r- o" ARISTOTELES F. OLEGARIO, re re-e)#e* byCARMELITA GU MAN4OLEGARIO, Petitioners,vs.PEDRO C. MARI, re re-e)#e* by LILIA C. MARI4CAM!A, Respondent.

D / I S I O N

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Possession, to constitute the foundation of ac;uisitive prescription, $ust bepossession under a clai$ of title or $ust be adverse. 7cts of a possessor% characterperfor$ed b% one 0ho holds the propert% b% $ere tolerance of the o0ner are clearl%not in the concept of an o0ner and such possessor% acts, no $atter ho0 lon&continued, do not start the runnin& of the period of prescription.

In the present Petition for Revie0 on Certiorari ,* petitioners assail the 7pril * , --*Decision of the /ourt of 7ppeals '/7( in /7#2.R. /V No. = * >, reversin& theOctober *<, *88= Decision < of the Re&ional Trial /ourt 'RT/( of Pan&asinan, 6ranch<8. The /7 declared the respondent herein as the o0ner of !ot Nos. *9==<, *9= + and*><=+ of the Man&atare$ cadastral surve%.

Fa+#ua3 a)#e+e*e)#-

7s earl% as *8*+, > )uan Mari, the father of respondent, declared his o0nership over aparcel of land in Nancasalan, Man&atare$ for ta? purposes. He too: possession of thesa$e b% delineatin& the li$its 0ith a ba$boo fence, = plantin& various fruit bearin& treesand ba$boos + and constructin& a house thereon. 9 7fter a surve% $ade in *8=-, Ta?Declaration No. -> for the %ear *8=* specified the sub5ect realt% as a residential

land 0ith an area of 89 s;uare $eters and as havin& the follo0in& boundariesB North #Ma&dalena 1ernande3 South # /atalina /aca%orin ast # /a$ino Vecinal and Aest #Norberto 6u&arin. In *89>, the sub5ect realt% 0as transferred to respondent, PedroMari, b% virtue of a deed of sale.

Mean0hile, in *8>9, Aenceslao Ole&ario, the husband of Ma&dalena 1ernande3 andfather of petitioner 7rsenio Ole&ario, filed a ne0 ta? declaration 8 for a certain =-#s;uare$eter parcel of land, indicatin& the follo0in& boundariesB North # /esario and 7ntonio1ernande3 South # )uan Mari ast # 6arrio Road and Aest # Norberto 6u&arin. Thenon Ma% *>, *8+*, Aenceslao Ole&ario e?ecuted a Deed of Guit#/lai$ of "nre&istered

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/dec2009/gr_147951_2009.html#fnt1




















Propert% *- in favor of 7rsenio Ole&ario transferrin& to the latter inter alia theafore$entioned =-#s;uare $eter propert%.

In the cadastral surve% conducted fro$ *8+* to *8+ , the sub5ect realt% 0as identifiedas !ot Nos. *9= +, *9==< and *><=+ of the Man&atare$ /adastre. 7t this ti$e,Aenceslao Ole&ario disputed )uan Mari4s clai$ over !ot Nos. *9= + and *9==<.Hence, on the t0o correspondin& surve% notification cards dated Septe$ber ,*8+ , ** the clai$ant appeared as )uan Mari v. Aenceslao Ole&ario . Aith re&ard to!ot No. *><=+, the surve% notification card na$ed )uan Mari as the clai$ant.

So$eti$e around *8 , respondent filed 0ith the Depart$ent of nviron$ent andNatural Resources Re&ional Office in Pan&asinan a protest a&ainst the petitionersbecause of their encroach$ent into the disputed realt%. 7fter investi&ation, said officedecided in favor of the respondent and found the latter to be the o0ner of !ot Nos.*9= +, *9==< and *><=+. Petitioners did not appeal and the said decision beca$efinal and e?ecutor%.

In *8 8, 7rsenio Ole&ario caused the a$end$ent of his ta? declaration * for the =-#s;uare $eter propert% to reflect *( an increased area of <>* s;uare $eters ( the/adastral !ot No. as *9= +, Pls#9+ #D *< and <( the boundaries asB North#N !ot*+< = Road South#NA#!ots *><+< +< =, Pls#9+ #D ast#S #!ot *9== , Pls#9+ #D and Aest#SA#!ot *><= , Pls#9+ #D.

!roceedings be ore the Regional #rial Court

In *88-, after discoverin& the a$ended entries in 7rsenio Ole&arioJs Ta? Declaration

No. >*-9#R, respondent filed a co$plaint*>

0ith the RT/ of !in&a%en, Pan&asinan, forRecover% of Possession and 7nnul$ent of Ta? Declaration No. >*-9#R. Respondentalle&ed, inter alia , that )uan Mari, and subse;uentl% his successor, 0as deprived b% theOle&arios of the possession of portions of sub5ect realt% 0hich respondent o0ned. Trialthereafter ensued.

On October *<, *88=, the RT/ rendered 5ud&$ent in favor of the petitioners, vi" B

AH R 1OR , in the li&ht of the fore&oin& considerations, 5ud&$ent is hereb%rendered as follo0sB

*. Declarin& the defendants#Ole&ario the o0ners of !ots *9==< and *9= + of theMan&atare$ cadastral surve%.

. Dis$issin& the plaintiffJs /o$plaint on the &round of prescription of action andon the further &round that CheE failed to prove ChisE o0nership of an% portion of thet0o lots $entioned in the ne?t precedin& para&raph 'assu$in& ar!uendo thatChisE action has not prescribed(













<. Orderin& the plaintiff to pa% the costs of this suit. No da$a&es are a0arded b%the /ourt.

SO ORD R D. *=

!roceedings be ore the Court o $ppeals

Respondent appealed to the /7 0hich reversed the trial courtJs findin&s. The /7 foundrespondent to have adduced stron&er evidence of prior possession and o0nership ofthe disputed realt%. The dispositive portion of the /7 Decision statesB

AH R 1OR , the trial courtJs Decision dated October *<, *88= is R V RS D andS T 7SID and a ne0 one is hereb% entered declarin& appellant Pedro /. Marirepresented b% !ilia /. Mari#/a$ba the la0ful o0ner of !ot Nos. *9= +, *9==< and*><=+ of the Man&atare$ /adastre, 0ithout pronounce$ent as to costs.

SO ORD R D. *+

Petitioners, 0ithout filin& a $otion for reconsideration of the /7 Decision, thereafterfiled the present petition for revie0.

I--ue-

Petitioners raise the follo0in& issuesB

*. Ahether or not there 0as failure on Cthe part ofE the /ourt of 7ppeals toappreciate and &ive 0ei&ht to the evidence presented b% the petitioners

. Ahether or not the /ourt of 7ppeals erred in its decision in ad5udicatin&o0nership of the said lots in favor of the respondent and CinE &ivin& &reat 0ei&htto the respondent4s evidence

<. Ahether or not the /ourt of 7ppeals erred in its failure to declare the action asbarred b% laches

>. Ahether or not the /ourt of 7ppeals failed to find anCdE declare the petitionersas havin& ac;uired o0nership of the disputed lots b% ac;uisitive prescription

=. Ahether or not the /ourt of 7ppeals erred in ad5udicatin& the lot in favor ofrespondent and also CinE den%in& a0ard of da$a&es to petitioners. *9

Pe# # o)er- Ar u e)#-

Petitioners contend that the% have been in possession of the disputed lots since *8>or thereabouts, or for $ore than <- %ears alread%. Hence, the% ac;uired o0nership









thereover b% virtue of prescription. The% also i$pute ne&li&ence or failure on the part of respondent to assert his alle&ed ri&hts 0ithin a reasonable ti$e.

Re- o)*e)# - Ar u e)#-

On the other hand, respondent asserts that petitioners clai$ o0nership over onl% acertain =-#s;uare $eter parcel of land, as evidenced b% their ta? declaration 0hich

consistentl% declared onl% such area. It 0as onl% in Septe$ber *8 8 that petitionerssou&ht to e?pand the area of their clai$ to <>* s;uare $eters b% virtue of a letter tothe Provincial 7ssessor of Pan&asinan. Hence, respondent asserts that prescriptionhas not set in. Respondent also contends that petitionersJ occupanc% has been ille&alfro$ the point of inception and thus, such possession can never ripen into a le&alstatus.

Our Ru3 )

The petition has no $erit.

'etitioners( )vidence is *ea+

/onsiderin& the conflictin& findin&s of the RT/ and the /7, a circu$stance thatconstitutes an e?ception * to the &eneral rule that onl% ;uestions of la0 are propersub5ects of a petition under Rule >=, 0e shall assess and 0ei&h the evidence adducedb% the parties and shall resolve the ;uestions of fact raised b% petitioners.

7 stud% of the evidence presented b% petitioners sho0s that the /7 did not err infindin& such evidence 0ea:er than that of respondent. 7rsenio Ole&ario testified thatas earl% as *8<9 their fa$il% had built a nipa house on the land 0here the% lived. ethe also testified that the for$er o0ner of the land 0as his $other, Ma&dalena1ernande3. *8 Si&nificantl%, Ma&dalena 1ernande3 has never clai$ed and 0as never inpossession or o0nership of !ot Nos. *9==<, *9= + and *><=+. Petitioners4 evidencethus supports the conclusion that in *8<9 the% 0ere in possession, not of !ot No.*9= +, but of their $other4s land, possibl% =- s;uare $eters of it, 0hich is theappro?i$ate floor area of the house. /onversel%, petitionersJ evidence fails to clearl%prove that in *8<9 the% 0ere alread% occup%in& the disputed lots. The records, in fact,do not sho0 e?actl% 0hen the Ole&arios entered and started occup%in& the disputed

lots.

The evidence sho0s that a hollo0 bloc: fence, an i$prove$ent introduced b% theOle&arios in *8+=, no0 e?ists so$e0here alon& the disputed lots. PetitionersJ clai$that the% 0ere in possession of the disputed lots even prior to *8+= based on thee?istence of the ba$boo fence on the boundar% of their land precedin& the e?istenceof the hollo0 bloc: fence, ho0ever, holds no 0ater. The testi$on% of Marcelino2utierre3 sho0s that for$erl% there 0as a ba$boo fence de$arcatin& bet0een theland of the Ole&arios and the Maris and that in *8+> or *8+= a hollo0 bloc: fence 0as







constructed. He did not sa%, ho0ever, that the place 0here the hollo0 bloc: fence 0asconstructed 0as the e?act sa$e place 0here the ba$boo boundar% fence once stood.

ven the testi$on% of 7rsenio Ole&ario 0as a$bi&uous on this $atter, vi" B

G Ahen 0as the CconcreteE hollo0 bloc: CfenceE separatin& %our propert% Cfro$Ethe propert% of )uan Mari constructedL

7 It 0as constructed in *8+=.

G 6efore the construction of that concrete hollo0 bloc: fence bet0een %our landand the land of )uan Mari CinE *8+=, 0hat 0as the visible boundar% bet0een %ourland and the land of )uan MariL

7 6a$boo fence, sir. -

7rsenio $erel% testified that a ba$boo fence 0as for$erl% the visible boundar%bet0een his land and the land of )uan Mari and that a concrete hollo0 bloc: fence0as constructed in *8+=. His testi$on% failed to sho0 that the concrete hollo0 bloc:fence 0as constructed in the sa$e position 0here the ba$boo boundar% fence oncestood.

On the other hand, there is a$ple evidence on record, e$bodied in Ta? DeclarationNo. 8>-> for the %ear *8>9 the surve% s:etch plan of *8+* and the surve% plan of*88 , that the boundar% clai$ed b% the Ole&arios :ept $ovin& in such a 0a% that theportion the% occupied e?panded fro$ =- s;uare $eters 'in the land of his $other( to<99 s;uare $eters. * Vie0ed in relation to the entire bod% of evidence presented b% theparties in this case, these docu$ents cannot plausibl% all be $ista:en in the areasspecified therein. 7s a&ainst the bare clai$ of 7rsenio that his predecessor $erel%$ade an inaccurate esti$ate in providin& =- s;uare $eters as the area clai$ed b% thelatter in *8>9 in the ta? declaration, < 0e find it $ore plausible to believe that each ofthe docu$ents on record stated the true area $easure$ents of the partiesJ clai$s atthe particular ti$e each docu$ent 0as e?ecuted. 1avvphi1

7s correctl% found b% the /7, the earliest that petitioners can be considered to haveoccupied the disputed propert% 0as in *8+= 0hen the concrete hollo0 bloc: fence 0asconstructed on the disputed lots.

nership and 'rescription

7s previousl% $entioned, respondentJs predecessor, )uan Mari, had declared thedisputed realt% > for ta? purposes as earl% as *8*+. The ta? declarations sho0 that hehad a t0o store% house on the realt%. He also planted fruit bearin& trees and ba$boosthereon. The records = also sho0 that the 89#s;uare $eter propert% had a ba$boofence alon& its peri$eter. 7ll these circu$stances clearl% sho0 that )uan Mari 0as in















possession of sub5ect realt% in the concept of o0ner, publicl% and peacefull% since *8*+or lon& before petitioners entered the disputed realt% so$eti$e in *8+=.

6ased on 7rticle =< of the /ivil /ode, + the respondent is the preferred possessorbecause, benefitin& fro$ his fatherJs ta? declaration of the sub5ect realt% since *8*+, hehas been in possession thereof for a lon&er period. On the other hand, petitionersac;uired 5oint possession onl% so$eti$e in *8+=.

Despite = %ears of occup%in& the disputed lots, therefore, petitioners did not ac;uireo0nership. 1irstl%, the% had no 5ust title. Petitioners did not present an% docu$ent tosho0 ho0 the titles over !ot Nos. *9= + and *9=<< 0ere transferred to the$, 0hetherfro$ respondent, his predecessor, or an% other person. 9 Petitioners, therefore, couldnot ac;uire the disputed real propert% b% ordinar% prescription throu&h possession for*- %ears. Secondl%, it is settled that o0nership cannot be ac;uired b% $ere occupation."nless coupled 0ith the ele$ent of hostilit% to0ards the true o0ner, occupation anduse, ho0ever lon&, 0ill not confer title b% prescription or adverse possession. In other0ords, possession, to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive ri&ht, $ust bepossession under clai$ of title, that is, it $ust be adverse. 8la phil

PetitionersJ acts of a possessor% character # acts that $i&ht have been $erel% toleratedb% the o0ner # did not constitute possession. No $atter ho0 lon& tolerated possessionis continued, it does not start the runnin& of the prescriptive period. <- Mere $aterialpossession of land is not adverse possession as a&ainst the o0ner and is insufficientto vest title, unless such possession is acco$panied b% the intent to possess as ano0ner. There should be a hostile use of such a nature and e?ercised under suchcircu$stance as to $anifest and &ive notice that the possession is under a clai$ of

ri&ht.<*

Petitioners have failed to prove that their possession 0as adverse or under clai$ oftitle or ri&ht. "nli:e respondent, petitioners did not have either the coura&e orforthri&htness to publicl% declare the disputed lots as o0ned b% the$ for ta? purposes.Ta? declarations prove that the holder has a clai$ of title over the propert%. 7side fro$$anifestin& a sincere desire to obtain title thereto, the% announce the holderJs adverseclai$ a&ainst the state and other interested parties . < PetitionersJ o$ission, 0henvie0ed in con5unction 0ith respondentJs continued une;uivocal declaration ofo0nership over, pa%$ent of ta?es on and possession of the sub5ect realt%, sho0s alac: of sufficient adverseness of the for$ers4 possession to ;ualif% as bein& one in theconcept of o0ner.

The onl% instance petitioners assu$ed a le&al position sufficientl% adverse torespondentJs o0nership of the disputed properties 0as 0hen the% declared !ot No.*9= + for ta? purposes in their na$e in *8 8. << Since then and until the filin& of theco$plaint for recover% of possession in *88-, onl% one %ear had elapsed. Hence,petitioners never ac;uired o0nership throu&h e?traordinar% prescription of the sub5ectrealt%.



















On the other hand, bein& the sole transferree of his father, respondent sho0ed throu&hhis ta? declarations 0hich 0ere coupled 0ith possessor% acts that he, throu&h hispredecessor, had been in possession of the land for $ore than <- %ears since *8*+.

Open, e?clusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the periodprescribed b% la0 creates the le&al fiction 0hereb% the land, upon co$pletion of there;uisite period # ipso jure and 0ithout the need of 5udicial or other sanction, ceases tobe public land and beco$es private propert%. <> O0nership of i$$ovable propert% isac;uired b% e?traordinar% prescription throu&h possession for <- %ears. <= 1or purposesof decidin& the instant case, therefore, the possession b% respondent and hispredecessor had alread% ripened into o0nership of the sub5ect realt% b% virtue ofprescription as earl% as *8>+.

Laches

Petitioners cannot find refu&e in the principle of laches. It is not 5ust the lapse of ti$e or dela% that constitutes laches. The essence of laches is the failure or ne&lect, for anunreasonable and une?plained len&th of ti$e, to do that 0hich, throu&h due dili&ence,could or should have been done earlier, thus &ivin& rise to a presu$ption that the part%entitled to assert it had earlier abandoned or declined to assert it.

The essential ele$ents of laches areB 'a( conduct on the part of the defendant, or ofone under 0ho$ he clai$s, &ivin& rise to the situation co$plained of 'b( dela% inassertin& co$plainantJs ri&hts after he had :no0led&e of defendantJs acts and after hehas had the opportunit% to sue 'c( lac: of :no0led&e or notice b% defendant that theco$plainant 0ill assert the ri&ht on 0hich he bases his suit and 'd( in5ur% or pre5udiceto the defendant in the event the relief is accorded to the co$plainant. <+

In the instant case, the second and third ele$ents are $issin&. Petitioners had noticeand :ne0 all alon& the position of the respondent and his predecessor )uan Mari # the%0ere standin& pat on his o0nership over the sub5ect realt%. This stand of respondentand his predecessor 0as recorded and clearl% visible fro$ the notification surve%cards. <9 1ro$ *8+ , the date of the cards, until *8 8 there 0as nothin& to indicate an%chan&e in the position of an% of the parties. Moreover, that respondent had notconceded o0nership and possession of the land to petitioners is clear also fro$ thefact that Pedro Mari continued to declare the entire 89#s;uare $eter propert% in hisna$e and pa% ta?es for the entire area after his father transferred the propert% to hi$.

On the other hand, it 0as petitioners 0ho suddenl% chan&ed their position in *8 8 b%chan&in& the area of the propert% declared in their na$e fro$ =- s;uare $eters to <>*s;uare $eters and specif%in& the details to $a:e it appear that the ta? declaration forthe =-#s;uare $eter propert% pertained to !ot No. *9= +. 7s previousl% discussed, it0as onl% at this point, in *8 8, that it can be clearl% stated that petitioners 0ere $a:in&their clai$ of o0nership public and une;uivocal and convertin& their possession over!ot No. *9= + into one in the concept of o0ner.











"pon discover% of this clear and une;uivocal chan&e in status of petitioners4 positionover the disputed land respondent i$$ediatel% acted. He filed in *88- the co$plaintfor recover% of possession and nullification of ta? declaration. Hence, 0e find no lachesin the instant case.

In conclusion, 0e find no reversible error on the part of the /7 in reco&ni3in& theo0nership and ri&ht of possession of respondent over !ot Nos. *9= +, *9==< and*><=+. There is, thus, also no basis for an a0ard of da$a&es and attorne%4s fees infavor of petitioners.

@%EREFORE , the instant petition is DENIED . The assailed Decision of the /ourt of 7ppeals dated 7pril * , --* is AFFIRMED .

SO ORD R D.


Manila

G.R. No. 185B De+e ber B, 200/

%ERMINIO M. GUTIERRE a)* ELISA A. GUTIERRE 4MA'UGA, Petitioners,vs.FLORA MENDO A4PLA A a)* PONCIANO %ERNANDE , Respondents.

D / I S I O N

C%ICO4NA ARIO, J.



This Petition for Revie0 on /ertiorari * under Rule >= of the Rules of /ourt assails the 7$ended Decision dated + Septe$ber -- of the /ourt of 7ppeals in /7#2.R. /VNo. 8===, 0hich recalled and set aside its earlier Decision < dated )une -- . Theprior Decision of the appellate court reversed the Decision > dated *= )une --9 of theRe&ional Trial /ourt 'RT/( of Tanauan /it%, 6ranch <, in /ivil /ase No. -+#-># 8 8,0hich pronounced that herein respondents 1lora Mendo3a and Ponciano Hernande3'respondents( 0ere the la0ful o0ners of the propert% sub5ect of this case.

7s culled fro$ the records, the antecedents of the case are as follo0sB

I&nacio Mendo3a is the co$$on ascendant of the parties herein. I&nacio 0as first$arried to )uana )auri&ue, = to 0ho$ Do$inador and Victoria 0ere born. PetitionerHer$inio M. 2utierre3 'Her$inio( + is the son of Victoria, and petitioner lisa 7.2utierre3#Ma%u&a ' lisa( 9 is the dau&hter of Her$inio.

7fter the death of )uana in *8*<, I&nacio $arried I&nacia )auri&ue, the %oun&er sisterof )uana. Out of this second $arria&e, five children 0ere born, na$el%B /risosto$o,1lora, 1elisa, Mercedes and /onstancia. 7s aforesaid, respondent 1lora Mendo3a#Pla3a '1lora( is the dau&hter of I&nacia, 0hile respondent Ponciano Hernande3'Ponciano( is the son of 1elisa.

The parcel of land sub5ect of this case 'sub5ect propert%( is an unre&istered landlocated in 6aran&a% Sta. /lara, Sto. To$as, 6atan&as, containin& an area of >>+s;uare $eters, $ore or less.

On = March *8*+, I&nacio ac;uired the sub5ect propert% b% 0a% of purchase fro$ !uis

/ustodio for P --.--, 0hich sale 0as contained in a notari3ed docu$ent entitledscritura Publica.

Thereafter, on March *8>-, I&nacio e?ecuted a deed of donation inter vivos, 8 0hereb% the sub5ect propert% 0as donated to the children 0ho$ he be&ot 0ith I&nacia,his second 0ife. I&nacia accepted the donation in the sa$e instru$ent on behalf of her children. Do$inador and Victoria 0ere also si&natories to the deed of donation intervivos as instru$ental 0itnesses. The deed 0as li:e0ise dul% notari3ed, but the sa$e0as not recorded in the Re&istr% of Deeds.

Subse;uentl%, on 9 7pril --+, respondents filed a /o$plaint for 7ccionReivindicatoria, Publiciana and Guietin& of Title a&ainst petitioners in the RT/ ofTanauan /it%, 0hich 0as doc:eted as /ivil /ase No. -+#-># 8 8. Respondents alle&edthat after the e?ecution of the deed of donation inter vivos, the sub5ect propert% 0asassi&ned to 1lora and her sister 1elisa, 0ho then possessed and occupied the sa$e aso0ners. Ponciano too: over and e?ercised the ri&hts of his $other 1elisa after thelatter died in *8 . On or about late )anuar% or earl% 1ebruar% of --+, petitioners too:possession of the southern portion of the sub5ect propert% and constructed a house ofstron& $aterials therein, despite the vi&orous ob5ection and opposition of the





















respondents. 7s the parties 0ere close relatives, respondents e?erted efforts toco$pro$ise and a$icabl% settle the case, but petitioners refused. Respondentspra%ed, inter alia, that the% be declared the true and ri&htful o0ners of the sub5ect landpetitioners be directed to de$olish and re$ove the house of stron& $aterials, 0hichthe% built in bad faith and petitioners be ordered to pa% attorne%4s fees, e?penses ofliti&ation, da$a&es and 5udicial costs.

Petitioners accordin&l% denied the above $aterial aver$ents in their 7ns0er, *- assertin& that I&nacio and his first 0ife, )uana, had been in possession of the sub5ectpropert% as earl% as *8--. 7fter the death of )uana, Do$inador, Victoria and I&naciotoo: over possession of the sub5ect propert%. Ahen Do$inador and Victoria died in*8>- and *8><, respectivel%, their heirs, includin& petitioners, occupied and possessedthe sub5ect propert% openl%, peacefull% and publicl%. Petitioners li:e0ise disputed the&enuineness and authenticit% of the deed of donation inter vivos, considerin& that for$ore than += %ears the said docu$ent 0as not re&istered 0ith the office of theRe&ister of Deeds to cause its transfer to respondents. Respondents4 presence on and

occupanc% of a portion of the sub5ect propert% 0ere alle&edl% a $ere tolerance on thepart of petitioners. Thus, the title and ri&hts of petitioners over the sub5ect propert%0ere absolute and le&al b% virtue of succession.

On *= )une --9, the RT/ rendered its Decision in favor of respondents, thedispositive portion of 0hich providesB

AH R 1OR , 5ud&$ent is rendered in favor of the CrespondentsE and a&ainstCpetitionersEB

*. Pronouncin& and confir$in& that the CrespondentsE are the la0ful, true andri&htful o0ners of the land described in para&raph > of the co$plaint Csub5ectpropert%E, and hereb% re$ove the cloud and ;uiet their title theretoB

. Orderin& the CpetitionersE to refrain fro$ disturbin& in 0hatever $anner theo0nership and possession of the CrespondentsE over the land sub5ect $atter ofthis liti&ation

<. Pronouncin& CpetitionersE to have lost the house of stron& and concrete$aterials 0hich the% built in bad faith on the land of the CrespondentsE 0ithout

ri&ht to inde$nit%, and orderin& the CpetitionersE to de$olish and re$ove the saidhouse fro$ the Crespondents4E land 0ithin thirt% '<-( da%s fro$ the date this

5ud&$ent beco$es final at their o0n e?pense and thereafter vacate and restoreto the CrespondentsE possession of the portion of the land 0hich the CpetitionersEhave occupied.

>. Orderin& the CpetitionersE to pa% CrespondentE Ponciano Hernande3 the su$ ofP=-,---.-- for $oral da$a&es, and another su$ of P -,---.-- to bothCrespondentsE for attorne%4s fees.





=. Plus the costs assessed a&ainst the CpetitionersE. **

Principall%, the RT/ relied on the deed of donation inter vivos in a0ardin& the sub5ectpropert% to respondents. The sa$e 0as properl% identified and described in thetesti$on% of Mercedes Mendo3a, one of the dau&hters of I&nacio b% his second$arria&e. The deed 0as also a notari3ed docu$ent, 0hich 0as e?ecuted 0ith all thefor$al re;uire$ents of the la0. Thus, the recitals contained therein 0ere presu$ed tobe true and authentic, 0hich presu$ption the petitioners failed to overco$e 0ith clear,convincin&, over0hel$in& and $ore than $erel% preponderant evidence. The RT/also ruled that the deed of donation inter vivos 0as an ancient docu$ent, * havin&been e?ecuted on March *8>- and bein& clearl% $ore than thirt% '<-( %ears old. Thedeed 0as in the proper custod% of respondent Ponciano 0ho ac;uired the sa$e fro$his $other 1elisa, before the latter4s death. On its face, the deed 0as free fro$ an%alterations, interlineations, or erasures of a $aterial character, or an% circu$stance that$a% &enerate suspicion of its authenticit%. The certificate of the /ler: of /ourt of6atan&as /it% offered b% petitioners, statin& that the office had no available

records docu$ents notari3ed b% the notar% public 0ho si&ned the deed of donationinter vivos, did not rule out the authenticit% of the said deed. It did not follo0 that thedeed 0as also ine?istent in another &overn$ent depositories of ancient docu$ents.

Moreover, the RT/ declared petitioners to be in bad faith in buildin& a house of stron&$aterials on a portion of the sub5ect propert%. The respondents stron&l% opposed theconstruction fro$ the start, &iven that the occupation and possession b% the petitioners0ere $erel% tolerated.

Petitioners filed an appeal 0ith the /ourt of 7ppeals, 0hich 0as doc:eted as /7#2.R.

/V No. 8===.

On )une -- , the /ourt of 7ppeals pro$ul&ated a Decision, reversin& the rulin& ofthe RT/, ratiocinatin& in this 0iseB

It is undisputed that the sub5ect propert% is an unre&istered land over 0hich bothparties, 0ho are descendants of I&nacio Mendo3a, clai$ o0nership. CRespondentsEclai$ o0nership b% virtue of a donation inter vivos, alle&edl% e?ecuted in *8>- b%I&nacio in favor of I&nacia, and possession thereof. On the other hand, CpetitionersEclai$ that the% are o0ners of a portion of the propert% b% ac;uisitive possession. 6othparties presented receipts provin& that the% have been pa%in& realt% ta?es on thepropert%. Thus, the controvers% boils do0n to the e?a$ination of the evidencepresented.

The RT/ herein relied heavil% on the donation inter vivos, ?h. 6 dated March ,*8>-, alle&edl% e?ecuted b% I&nacio Mendo3a in favor of Chis children 0ith his second0ife I&naciaE, 0hich 0as ac:no0led&ed b% I&nacia in the sa$e instru$ent ? ? ?.Reliance on ?h. 6 , ho0ever, is fla0ed. It $ust be noted that the propert% sub5ect ofcontrovers% is an unre&istered land, and the parties therein are Cthe children of I&nacio









IN VI A O1 TH 1OR 2OIN2, the instant appeal is 2R7NT D. The Decision of theRe&ional Trial /ourt 'RT/( dated )une *=, --9, pro$ul&ated b% 6ranch <, /it% ofTanuan, 6atan&as, in /ivil /ase No. -+#-># 8 8, is hereb% R V RS D and S T

7SID , and a ne0 one entered DISMISSIN2 the co$plaint in /ivil /ase No. -+#->#8 8. No cost. *>

Respondents forth0ith filed a Motion for Reconsideration *= on the above Decision,contendin&, inter alia, that 0here a part% has :no0led&e of a prior e?istin& interest0hich 0as unre&istered at the ti$e he ac;uired a ri&ht to the sa$e land, his :no0led&eof that prior unre&istered interest has the effect of re&istration as to hi$. The:no0led&e of Victoria, an instru$ental 0itness to the deed of donation inter vivos, ofthe e?istin& prior interest of the heirs of I&nacio b% his second $arria&e is dee$ed inla0 to be :no0led&e of the petitioners.

On + Septe$ber -- , the /ourt of 7ppeals pro$ul&ated an 7$ended Decision, *+ settin& aside its earlier Decision, holdin& thatB

7fter a careful anal%sis of the circu$stances of this case, Ae find $erit in thear&u$ents of the plaintiff#appellees.

? ? ? ?

To clarif%, as a &eneral rule, no deed, conve%ance, $ort&a&e, lease or other voluntar%instru$ent affectin& land not re&istered under the Torrens s%ste$ shall be valid, e?ceptas bet0een the parties thereto, unless such instru$ent shall have been recorded in the$anner herein prescribed in the office of the Re&ister of Deeds for the province or cit%

0here the land lies 'Section **<, Presidential Decree No. *= 8, as a$ended(. This$eans that an% instru$ent dealin& 0ith unre&istered land shall not bind third persons,unless the instru$ent is re&istered in the Office of the Re&ister of Deeds albeit valid asbet0een the parties therein.

7s correctl% pointed out b% the CrespondentsE, the la0 has e?ceptions. Theconve%ance shall not be valid a&ainst an% person unless re&istered, e?cept '*( the&rantor, ' ( his heirs and devisees, and '<( third persons havin& actual notice of:no0led&e thereof 'Heirs of duardo Manlapat v. /ourt of 7ppeals, supra, p. > +,citin& Pe@a, Re&istration of !and Titles and Deeds, *88> ed. p. .(

? ? ? ?

7ppropriatel%, the proper e?ception applicable in this case to bind the CpetitionersE tothe donation inter vivos should be under the second e?ception, that is, bein& heirs ofI&nacio Mendo3a. It should be stressed that the o0ner of the unre&istered propert% isI&nacio Mendo3a and that both parties are his successors. CRespondentsE are hissuccessors b% his second $arria&e, 0hile CpetitionersE are his successors b% his first$arria&e. Thus, bein& his heirs and successors, the CpetitionersE $ust be bound for









the% are considered $ere e?tension of the &rantor 'Pe@a, Re&istration of !and Titlesand Deeds, p. (.

IN VI A O1 7!! TH 1OR 2OIN2, the instant $otion for reconsideration is hereb%2R7NT D. This /ourt4s Decision pro$ul&ated on )une , -- is R /7!! D 7NDS T 7SID , and a ne0 one entered 711IRMIN2 the Re&ional Trial /ourt4s Decisiondated )une *=, --9, in /ivil /ase No. -+#-># 8 8. No /ost. ' $phases ours.(

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration *9 and a Supple$ent to the Motion forReconsideration, * but the /ourt of 7ppeals 0as not persuaded. On * Nove$ber

-- , the appellate court issued a Resolution, *8 findin& thatB

7 careful revie0 of the $otion for reconsideration sho0s that the issues raised thereinhave been alread% been 'sic( clarified in and b% Our 7$ended Decision. 7s to thear&u$ents raised in the Supple$ent, i.e., that the Cpetitioners4E le&iti$es arepre5udiced, the sa$e $ust li:e0ise be denied for havin& been raised for the first ti$eat this sta&e of the appeal in a $otion for reconsideration. In an% case, the CpetitionersEare not 0ithout recourse re&ardin& their alle&ed pre5udiced ri&ht to their le&iti$es.

IN VI A O1 TH 1OR 2OIN2, the instant $otion for reconsideration andSupple$ent are D NI D.

Petitioners filed the instant Petition for Revie0 on /ertiorari, i$plorin& the /ourt to ta:eanother 5udicious loo: at their case, in their hope of securin& a $ore favorable

5ud&$ent.

Petitioners insist on disputin& the authenticit% of the deed of donation inter vivos infavor of the children of I&nacio and his second 0ife, I&nacia. Not onl% 0as the deedbelatedl% introduced b% Ponciano the sa$e is also fatall% invalid in vie0 of its non#re&istration as prescribed b% la0. Supposedl%, the said deed is li:e0ise inherentl%fla0ed substantivel%, because its provisions totall% e?clude petitioners fro$participatin& in the sharin& of the propert% sub5ect of the case, thereb% i$pairin& theirle&iti$es. 1urther$ore, petitioners clai$ that the% have occupied and possessed aportion of the sub5ect propert% in their o0n ri&ht and in the concept of o0ners, thusac;uirin& the sa$e b% prescription, if not laches.

Ae den% the petition.

Petitioners see$ to have overloo:ed the fact that the deed of donation inter vivos is anotari3ed docu$ent. 7ccordin& to Section <-, Rule *< of the Rules of /ourt, ever%instru$ent dul% ac:no0led&ed or proved and certified as provided b% la0, $a% bepresented in evidence 0ithout further proof, the certificate of ac:no0led&$ent bein& a

prima facie evidence of the e?ecution of the instru$ent or docu$ent involved. 7notarial docu$ent is evidence of the facts e?pressed therein. - 7 notari3ed docu$ent











en5o%s a pri$a facie presu$ption of authenticit% and due e?ecution. /lear andconvincin& evidence $ust be presented to overco$e such le&al presu$ption. *

In the instant case, petitioners failed to adduce sufficient evidence to overco$e theabove presu$ption. The onl% evidence offered b% petitioners to i$pu&n the deed ofdonation inter vivos 0as the testi$on% of petitioner lisa, 0herein she stated that thecontents of the deed could not have been true, &iven that petitioners inherited thesub5ect propert% fro$ Victoria Mendo3a, the dau&hter of I&nacio 0ith his first 0ife)uana. Such testi$on% 0as utterl% lac:in&. 1urther$ore, the /ourt finds nothin& 0ron&and or unusual in the fact that the deed of donation inter vivos 0as produced and$ade :no0n to petitioners onl% in the earl% part of the %ear --+ or $ore than si?t%'+-( %ears after its e?ecution. "nderstandabl%, it 0as onl% 0hen petitioners clai$edo0nership of a portion of the sub5ect propert% that respondents 0ere co$pelled toassert their o0n title to the propert%, 0hich the% traced to the deed of donation intervivos.

The non#re&istration of the aforesaid deed does not also affect the validit% thereof.Re&istration is not a re;uire$ent for validit% of the contract as bet0een the parties, forthe effect of re&istration serves chiefl% to bind third persons. The principal purpose ofre&istration is $erel% to notif% other persons not parties to a contract that a transactioninvolvin& the propert% has been entered into. < The conve%ance of unre&istered landshall not be valid a&ainst an% person unless re&istered, e?cept '*( the &rantor, ' ( hisheirs and devisees, and '<( third persons havin& actual notice or :no0led&e thereof. 7sheld b% the /ourt of 7ppeals, petitioners are the heirs of I&nacio, the &rantor of thesub5ect propert%. Thus, the% are bound b% the provisions of the deed of donation intervivos.

7nent the ar&u$ent that the donation inter vivos i$paired the le&iti$es of petitioners,the /ourt dee$s it unnecessar% to discuss the sa$e. Said ar&u$ent 0as indeed onl%raised for the first ti$e on appeal to the /ourt of 7ppeals and in the Supple$ent to theMotion for Reconsideration of the appellate court4s 7$ended Decision at that. Points of la0, theories, issues, and ar&u$ents not brou&ht to the attention of the lo0er courtneed not be, and ordinaril% 0ill not be, considered b% a revie0in& court, as thesecannot be raised for the first ti$e at such late sta&e. 6asic considerations of dueprocess underlie this rule. >

Petitioners4 clai$ of prescription in their favor li:e0ise deserves scant consideration."nli:e respondents 0ho can trace their title to the sub5ect propert% b% virtue of thedeed of donation inter vivos, petitioners cannot ade;uatel% e?plain ho0 the% enteredand possessed the sub5ect propert% to beco$e o0ners thereof. More i$portantl%,petitioners cannot even rebut the testi$on% = of Mercedes Mendo3a that she 0aspresent 0hen Victoria entreated their father I&nacio to allo0 her 'Victoria( to constructa house on a portion of the sub5ect propert%. I&nacio &ave per$ission to Victoria, butonl% on the condition that she 0ould have to leave 0hen his children b% his second$arria&e 0ould need the propert%. Thus, the possession of the propert% b% Victoria 0as













onl% b% virtue of the $ere tolerance thereof b% I&nacio and the children of his second$arria&e. 7s such, the alle&ed possession b% petitioners, 0hich the% clai$ to trace toVictoria, 0as also b% $ere tolerance on the part of respondents.

Prescription as a $ode of ac;uisition re;uires the e?istence of the follo0in&B '*(capacit% to ac;uire b% prescription ' ( a thin& capable of ac;uisition b% prescription'<( possession of the thin& under certain conditions and '>( lapse of ti$e provided b%la0. 7c;uisitive prescription $a% either be ordinar%, in 0hich case the possession $ustbe in &ood faith and 0ith 5ust title or e?traordinar%, in 0hich case there is neither &oodfaith nor 5ust title. In either case, there has to be possession, 0hich $ust be in theconcept of an o0ner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted. + 7s a corollar%, 7rticle ***8 of the /ivil /ode provides thatB

7rt. ***8. 7cts of possessor% character e?ecuted in virtue of license or b% $eretolerance of the o0ner shall not be available for the purposes of possession. 1avvphi1

7cts of possessor% character perfor$ed b% one 0ho holds b% $ere tolerance of theo0ner are clearl% not en concepto de due-o , and such possessor% acts, no $atter ho0lon& so continued, do not start the runnin& of the period of prescription.

In li&ht of the fore&oin&, petitioners cannot clai$ an% better ri&ht to the sub5ect propert%as a&ainst respondents.

AH R 1OR , the Petition for Revie0 on /ertiorari under Rule >= of the Rules of/ourt is D NI D. The 7$ended Decision dated + Septe$ber -- of the /ourt of

7ppeals in /7#2.R. /V No. 8=== is hereb% 711IRM D. No costs.

SO ORD R D.



Documents

Full Text Cases- Land Titles