GIL ATUN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. EUSEBIO NUÑEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Albay dismissing the
complaint for recovery of a parcel of registered land upon a motion to dismiss
filed by defendants after plaintiffs had closed their evidence. The land in
question is located in Legaspi City and registered in the name of Estefania
Atun, deceased aunt of plaintiffs, under Original Certificate of Title No. 11696
of the Registry of Property of Albay. The complaint was filed on August 7,
1950.

The evidence for the plaintiffs-appellants shows that they inherited the land
in question from their widowed aunt Estefania Atun (sister of their deceased
father Nicolas Atun), who died without any issue; that they had possessed the
land from 1927 to 1930, when plaintiff Gil Atun delivered the same to Silvestra
Nuñez (sister of defendant-appellee Eusebio Nuñez) for cultivation, for which
Silvestra paid the Atuns a part of the harvest as rental; that in 1940,
Silvestra turned over the land to defendant Eusebio Nuñez, who thereafter
refused to recognize plaintiffs’ ownership or to deliver their share of the
produce; and that defendant Eusebio Nuñez in turn sold the land to his
co-defendant Diego Belga, who took the property with the knowledge that it
belonged, not to Nuñez, but to plaintiffs.

Upon a demurrer to the evidence, filed by defendants after plaintiffs had
rested their case, the lower Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that
the period of ten years within which plaintiffs could have filed action for
recovery thereof under section 40 of Act 190 (computed from the time plaintiffs
lost possession of the land in 1940), had already elapsed, hence their action
had prescribed; and that furthermore, plaintiffs failed to prove their alleged
ownership of the land in question, so that the presumption that defendants,
being possessors, are the lawful owners thereof, had not been overcome.
Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal of the
complaint having been denied, they appealed to the Court of Appeals, which
forwarded the case to us because the appeal raises question of law.

The sole issue herein is whether the trial court erred in dismissing
plaintiffs-appellants’ complaint on the ground of prescription of action.

The dismissal is erroneous. The land in question is admittedly covered by a
Torrens title in the name of Estefania Atun, deceased aunt of plaintiffs.
Section 40 of Act 496 expressly provides that no title to registered land in
derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or
adverse possession. And this Court has repeatedly held that the right of the
registered owner to recover possession of the registered property is equally
imprescriptible, since possession is a mere consequence of ownership. (Manlapas
vs. Llorente, 48 Phil., 298, 308; Eugenio vs. Perdido,
supra, p. 41; J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Bolaños, 95
Phil., 106.)

“We are aware, of course, that title by adverse possession (acquisitive
prescription) is distinct from the statute of limitations (extinctive
prescription) and the operation and effects of such distinction has been
explored during the discussions of this petition for review.

But we have finally agreed that, as to lands registered under the Torrens
system, ten years’ adverse possession may not be permitted to defeat the owners’
right to possession—which is the necessary incident of ownership. Otherwise loss
of the land by prescription would be indirectly approved, in violation of sec.
46 of the Land Registration Act. This statute, being a later enactment, may be
said to have partially amended the Statute of Limitations established in Act No.
190 in so far as the registered lands are concerned.” (Juan Eugenio, et al.
vs. Silvina Perdido, et al., L-7083, May 19, 1955.)

And if prescription is unavailing against the registered owner, it must be
equally unavailing against the latter’s hereditary successors, because they
merely step into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law (new Civil Code,
Art. 777; Art. 657, old), the title or right undergoing no change by its
transmission mortis causa.

The lower Court also erred in ruling that plaintiffs-appellants have failed
to show a better title than that of defendants who are presumed to possess with
just title. As the land in question still stands registered in the name of
Estefania Atun, now deceased, the present owners there of would be her legal
heirs. It is of record that Estefania Atun died without any issue or ascendants
and left as her only surviving heirs the children of her brother Nicolas,
plaintiffs herein; and the rule is settled that the legal heirs of a deceased
may file an action arising out of a right belonging to their ancestor, without a
separate judicial declaration of their status as such, provided there is no
pending special proceeding for the settlement of the decendent’s estate (Mendoza
Vda. de Bonnevie vs. Cecilia Vda. de Pardo, 59 Phil., 486; Govt. of P.
I. vs. Serafica, 61 Phil., 93; Uy Coque vs. Sioca, 45 Phil.,
430).

Pursuant to the rule that reversal on appeal of a ruling upholding a
defendant’s demurrer to the evidence imports in civil cases loss of his right to
submit evidence in his behalf, in order to discourage prolonged litigations
(Arroyo vs. Azur, 76 Phil., 493, and cases therein cited), judgment
must be rendered according to plaintiffs’ evidence, which supports their claim
of ownership of the land in question, and for damages in the amount of P500 (t.
s. n., p. 21).

Wherefore, the order appealed from is reversed; plaintiffs-appellants Gil
Atun, Camila Atun, and Dorotea Atun are declared the lawful owners in common of
the lot in question; and defendants-appellees Eusebio Nuñez and Diego Delga are
ordered to surrender possession thereof to the plaintiffs, and to indemnify the
latter in the amount of P500 by way of damages. Costs against
defendants-appellees in both instances. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A,, Jugot Bautista
Angelo, Labrador, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.