**Facts:**
1. In 1949, Jose Alegarbes filed Homestead Application No. V-33203 for a 24-hectare unsurveyed land in Lantawan, Basilan, approved on January 23, 1952.
2. In 1955, the land was split into three lots: Lot 138 to Alegarbes, Lot 139 to Ulpiano Custodio, and Lot 140 to Jesus Virtucio following public land subdivision.
3. Alegarbes opposed Custodio’s and Virtucio’s homestead applications when they were given due course and protested to the Director of Lands.
4. On October 30, 1961, the Director of Lands denied Alegarbes’ protest, giving due course to the applications of Custodio and Virtucio.
5. Alegarbes appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who dismissed his appeal on July 28, 1967, and later to the Office of the President (OP), which also denied his appeal on October 25, 1974. Alegarbes’ motion for reconsideration was also denied.
6. On May 11, 1989, the Lands Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued an order of execution mandating Alegarbes to vacate the land.
7. Alegarbes refused to vacate the land.
8. On September 26, 1997, Virtucio filed a complaint for “Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Preliminary Injunction” in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Isabela, Basilan.
**Procedural Posture:**
1. The RTC ruled in favor of Virtucio on February 19, 2001.
2. Alegarbes appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on February 25, 2009 reversed the RTC’s decision and declared Alegarbes the owner of Lot 140.
3. Virtucio brought the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
**Issues:**
1. Whether or not Alegarbes acquired ownership over the subject property (Lot 140) by acquisitive prescription.
2. Whether the period for acquisitive prescription was interrupted by the protest Alegarbes filed in 1954 and other extrajudicial demands.
3. Whether the CA’s decision in a similar case (CA-G.R. CV-26286) involving Custodio should bind this case involving Virtucio.
4. Whether the award of attorney’s fees to Virtucio was proper.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. **Acquisitive Prescription:** The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s ruling that Alegarbes acquired ownership of Lot 140 through acquisitive prescription based on continuous, uninterrupted possession for over thirty years. Virtucio’s claim that Alegarbes’ possession was interrupted by the 1954 protest was dismissed, as only judicial summons could interrupt such possession, not administrative protests.
2. **Interruption of Prescription:** Virtucio’s reliance on Article 1155 regarding extrajudicial demands to interrupt prescription was incorrect. Interruption of acquisitive prescription is governed by Articles 1120-1125 of the Civil Code, which require judicial action, not extrajudicial demands.
3. **CA Decision in Similar Case:** The Court held that the CA’s decision in Custodio v. Alegarbes involving Lot 139 does not establish judicial precedent for this case. Each case must stand on its own merits, especially since different lots and parties were involved.
4. **Attorney’s Fees:** Given the ruling in favor of Alegarbes for having acquired the property by prescription, awarding attorney’s fees to Virtucio was deemed inappropriate by the Supreme Court.
**Doctrine:**
1. **Acquisitive Prescription:** The possession of public land in a manner open, continuous, and exclusive for the statutory period makes the possessor the owner ipso jure upon completion of the period. Only judicial summons can effectively interrupt the period of acquisitive prescription.
2. **Prescription Interruption:** Protests before administrative agencies and extrajudicial demands do not interrupt the running of the period for acquisitive prescription.
3. **Judicial Precedent and Stare Decisis:** Decisions of the Court of Appeals do not set binding precedents. Supreme Court decisions alone establish judicial precedents under the principle of stare decisis.
**Class Notes:**
– **Elements of Acquisitive Prescription:**
– **Ordinary Prescription:** Possession in good faith and with just title for ten (10) years (Article 1106, Civil Code).
– **Extraordinary Prescription:** Uninterrupted, adverse possession for thirty (30) years without need of title or good faith (Article 1137, Civil Code).
– **Interruption of Prescription:** Only judicial summons interrupts the acquisitive prescription period (Articles 1120-1125, Civil Code).
– **Administrative Protests:** Ineffective to interrupt acquisitive prescription.
– **Important Statutes:**
– Articles 1106, 1117, 1120-1125, 1134, and 1137 of the New Civil Code.
– **Stare Decisis Principle:** Fixed by the Supreme Court’s final decisions (Article 8, Civil Code).
**Historical Background:**
– **Colonial Land Policies:** Philippine land laws reflect historic colonial policies prioritizing formal land title registration, often leading to land disputes.
– **Public Land Act:** Governs the classification, management, and disposition of public lands including homestead grants to promote equitable land distribution.
– **Adverse Possession Doctrine:** Rooted in equitable principles to regularize long-standing, uncontested occupation and use of land, reflecting social realities over stringent legal formalities.
Leave a Reply