IGNACIA NEGRETE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MARINDUQUE AND IGMEDIO MADERAZO REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE CATALINO MADERAZO, DEFENDANTS AN…

Negrete versus Court of First Instance of Marinduque

The Case

This is a case about a widow who sued to recover a nine-hectare parcel of land in Mogpog, Marinduque, and about the man who claimed to have acquired it by prescription on the strength of a deed of sale. Ignacia Negrete, an indigent widow over seventy years of age, brought an action for recovery of ownership, a reivindicacion, against Igmedio Maderazo, later substituted by his son Catalino Maderazo. The case matters because it draws the line between ordinary and extraordinary acquisitive prescription, and because it holds that a deed of sale covering a parcel different from the land actually possessed cannot supply the just title and good faith that ordinary prescription demands.

Procedural History

In 1956 Negrete filed a forcible entry suit against Igmedio Maderazo in the municipal court of Mogpog. The municipal court rendered judgment for Maderazo, finding that he had been in material and physical possession of the disputed land since 1951 and had not unlawfully entered it in January 1956. Negrete did not appeal that decision.

Instead, on January 18, 1967, after the lapse of about ten years, she filed an action for recovery of ownership before the Court of First Instance of Marinduque. Igmedio Maderazo died on October 17, 1968, and was substituted by his legal representative, Catalino Maderazo. In a decision dated May 22, 1969, the trial court dismissed the case, holding that the deed of sale was a valid contract, that the defendant had possessed the land since 1954, and that even if there was a flaw in his title he had acquired the land by ordinary acquisitive prescription through ten years of possession in good faith.

Negrete appealed as a pauper, raising only questions of law. The appeal went directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

Since 1945, Ignacia Negrete and her late husband had been in continuous and peaceful possession of a parcel of about nine hectares in sitio Puting Buhangin, Mogpog, Marinduque, near the Marcopper Mines, covered by Tax Declaration Number 8431 in her name. She claimed to have inherited the land from her father, Juan Negrete, and that she and her predecessor had possessed it for about seventy years. She alleged that shortly after liberation, Maderazo entered the land by force, intimidation, stealth and strategy and introduced improvements of about one hundred coconut trees and twenty-eight boxes of rice paddies.

On July 28, 1956, she filed a forcible entry suit in the municipal court of Mogpog, complaining that on January 7, 1956 Maderazo had unlawfully entered the northern portion of about four hectares. The municipal court, after an ocular inspection by the chief of police, found that the land cultivated by Maderazo was the same land claimed by Negrete, but ruled that Maderazo had been in continuous and peaceful possession since 1951 and had not unlawfully entered. Negrete did not appeal.

Maderazo, for his part, asserted that on August 30, 1954 he bought from Tito Oriendo for one hundred fifty pesos a parcel described in the deed as the southern half portion, containing approximately three thousand seven hundred square meters, of a coconut-forest land situated in barrio Puyog, Boac, Marinduque, assessed in 1949 at thirty pesos under Tax Declaration Number 16117. The deed was notarized by the municipal judge of Boac. The disputed land of Negrete, by contrast, is about nine hectares, lies in Puting Buhangin, Mogpog, and has entirely different boundary owners.

Issues

• Whether or not the action for recovery of ownership was barred by prescription, the complaint having been filed about thirteen years after the defendant's possession began in 1954.
• Whether or not the defendant acquired the disputed land by ordinary acquisitive prescription through ten years of adverse possession in good faith and with just title.
• Whether or not the deed of sale in favor of Igmedio Maderazo may be considered a just title and a basis of good faith, it appearing to cover a parcel different from the land actually possessed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1141 of the Civil Code provides:

Real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years.

This fixes the period for the recovery of ownership, which the plaintiff's action must satisfy.

Article 1117 of the Civil Code provides:

The possessor in good faith and with just title acquires ownership of immovables by prescription after ten years of possession.

This is the ordinary prescription the defendant invoked.

Article 1137 of the Civil Code provides:

Ownership of immovables is acquired by prescription through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith.

This is the extraordinary prescription that applies when just title or good faith is absent.

Article 526 of the Civil Code provides:

A possessor in good faith is one who is not aware of any flaw in his title or mode of acquisition.

This defines the good faith that ordinary prescription requires.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the action was not barred. The applicable period for recovery of real property is thirty years under Article 1141. The defendant had possessed since 1954, and the action filed on January 18, 1967 interrupted the running of the prescriptive period. The action was therefore filed well within the period.

On the second and third issues, the Court held that the defendant did not acquire the land by ordinary prescription. Ordinary prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title for ten years. The Court ruled that a deed of sale, to constitute a just title and to generate good faith, must refer to the same parcel of land actually possessed. Here the deed covered a parcel patently different in area, location and boundary owners: the disputed land is about nine hectares in Puting Buhangin, Mogpog, while the deed covered only about three thousand seven hundred square meters in barrio Puyog, Boac. The Court also rejected the unsigned inspection report offered by the defendant, noting that it was not signed by the plaintiff's commissioner and was never submitted to the trial court.

The Court warned that to hold otherwise would allow anyone to acquire untitled land belonging to another by ten years of adverse possession on the basis of a deed covering a distinct parcel executed by a stranger to the land, and that forged deeds could be interposed to oust the true owner. The defendant, as buyer, knew what lot was sold to him and is conclusively presumed to have read the deed.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, an action for recovery of ownership of real property prescribes after thirty years under Article 1141, and the filing of the action interrupts the period. Second, ordinary acquisitive prescription of immovables requires possession in good faith and with just title for ten years under Article 1117. Third, a deed of sale constitutes a just title and generates good faith only if it refers to the same parcel of land actually possessed; a deed covering a different parcel cannot support ordinary prescription. Fourth, absent just title or good faith, ownership of immovables is acquired only by extraordinary prescription through thirty years of uninterrupted adverse possession under Article 1137.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and ruled in favor of Ignacia Negrete, holding that the defendant did not acquire the land by ordinary prescription and that her action was timely filed.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: a deed of sale covering a parcel different from the land actually possessed cannot supply just title or good faith for ten-year ordinary prescription. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary acquisitive prescription and the requisites of just title and good faith.