FEDERICO QUERUBIN, PETITIONER, VS. VICTORIO ALCONCEL, PLACIDA QUICIO, MAURICIA ALCONCEL, BRIGIDO ALCONCEL, ANACLETO ALCONCEL, GERVACIO ALCONCEL, MANUEL QUIANI TIBURCIO QUIANI AN…

Querubin versus Alconcel

The Case

This is a reinvindicatory action — a suit to recover ownership and possession of land — brought by Federico Querubin against Victorio Alconcel and several others who occupied portions of a tract of about eleven hectares in Caoayan, Ilocos Sur. Querubin traced his title to a Spanish-era possessory information registered in 1895; the occupants claimed open, continuous, and adverse possession since time immemorial, supported by tax declarations. The case matters because it teaches how a court measures the identity and area of land from an old possessory title, and how a registered possessory information stands against bare tax declarations in a contest over ownership.

Procedural History

Querubin filed the reinvindicatory action in March 1945 in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. After a hearing that lasted over sixteen years, the trial court rendered judgment in April 1961 in favor of Querubin, ordering the eviction of the Alconcel group. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in February 1964 reversed the trial court and upheld their claims. Querubin then came to the Supreme Court by certiorari.

Facts

Querubin held an informacion posesoria — a possessory information title — describing his land as composed of one thousand one brazas of circumference, bounded on the north by Pedregales, on the east by several named persons, and on the west by the river. It was recorded in the Registry of Property of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, in April 1895. His father, Fulgencio Querubin, used the land for pasture until 1905, when the river beside it inundated it. Through a gradual westward shifting of the river bed, the land emerged anew, stony and sandy and unfit for cultivation. For about thirty years, including the period of submergence, it lay uncultivated. Later, several persons, including the Alconcel group, entered the land, cleared it of stones and sand, and made it fit for agriculture.

In 1945 Querubin sought to recover possession and have his title judicially affirmed. The respondents offered evidence of open and continuous possession as owners since time immemorial, tracing ownership through predecessors and presenting assorted tax declarations. The trial court gave credence to Querubin, found that the earliest tax declarations of most respondents dated only to 1939 while Querubin's dated to 1934, and held that accretion and the river's abandonment of its bed had enlarged his property in law.

The Court of Appeals reversed. Treating one thousand one brazas of circumference as yielding only about two thousand one hundred forty square meters, or one fifth of a hectare, it reasoned that Querubin's title could not have covered the twenty hectares he claimed, and that the presumption of ownership in favor of the actual occupants prevailed. It also noted that Querubin increased the area in his tax declarations during the pendency of the litigation, without clear proof of alluvion or change of course.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in computing the area covered by Querubin's possessory information at only about one fifth of a hectare.
• Whether or not the discrepancy between the area in the possessory information and the area claimed by Querubin destroys the identity of the land and defeats his action.
• Whether or not Querubin's possessory information constitutes sufficient proof of ownership as against the respondents' tax declarations.
• Whether or not the respondents' possession ripened into ownership by acquisitive prescription.

Applicable Provisions

Article 434 of the Civil Code, cited in the decision on the burden in a reinvindicatory action, provides:

In an action to recover, the owner must prove his ownership and the identity of the thing which he claims.

This fixes the twin burden on a plaintiff like Querubin: ownership and identity of the land.

Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, discussed by the Court on the effect of a registered possessory information, provides:

The possessor of real property who has possessed it openly, continuously, and adversely for ten years, and who has inscribed his possession in the registry, shall be deemed the owner thereof.

This is the basis for the Court's holding that a long-registered possessory information confers ownership, or at least prima facie title.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals committed gross error in its computation. The word circumbalacion, though misspelled, means the act of surrounding a place, so one thousand one brazas of circumbalacion means a perimeter of one thousand one brazas. Adopting the surveyor's conversion, the Court found the land originally embraced close to nineteen hectares, not one fifth of a hectare. There was thus no fantastic increase in Querubin's claim of about twenty hectares.

On the second issue, the Court held that the inconsequential discrepancy between nineteen hectares in the information and twenty hectares claimed does not vitiate an award of ownership where the land is definitively described by boundaries, putting its identification beyond doubt. Accretion from the river, which the information itself cites as the western boundary, does not affect the identity of the land.

On the third issue, the Court held that a possessory information inscribed in the property registry demonstrates prima facie that the possessor is the owner. Since Fulgencio Querubin inscribed his information in 1895 and possessed continuously for more than ten years, Querubin is deemed to have conclusively proved ownership, or at the very least shown prima facie title. The respondents could dislodge him only by a superior title, and their tax declarations, earliest in 1939, are not superior to his 1934 declarations.

On the fourth issue, the Court agreed with the trial court that the respondents' claim of prescription failed. Their deed of sale rested on a private document, contradicted by their own pleadings and by the fact that the supposed vendor had died years before the alleged sale; their tax declarations began only in 1939, belying possession since time immemorial.

Doctrine

A possessory information inscribed in the property registry is prima facie evidence of ownership, and where possession has been inscribed for more than ten years, the possessor is deemed the owner under the Code of Civil Procedure. A plaintiff in a reinvindicatory action must prove both ownership and the identity of the thing claimed, but identity is established by boundaries, not by exact area, so a minor discrepancy in area does not defeat the action. Bare tax declarations are not superior title and do not by themselves establish acquisitive prescription.

Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the decision of the trial court in favor of Querubin, without pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a registered possessory information is prima facie proof of ownership, and identity of land is fixed by its boundaries, not by its exact area. Examiners use this case on the burden in reinvindicatory actions and on the weight of possessory information against tax declarations.