SUSANA MANGLICMOT VDA. DE BITANGCOL, EDNA BITANGCOL AND TERESITA BITANGCOL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. SPOUSES FORTUNATO AND CONCHITA LABARIN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Bitangcol versus Labarin

The Case

This is the case of Bitangcol versus Labarin. Susana Manglicmot Vda. de Bitangcol and her daughters Edna and Teresita Bitangcol sued the spouses Fortunato and Conchita Labarin to recover ownership and possession of a portion of a registered lot in Olongapo City. The Bitangcols claim the land as part of the estate of their late husband and father, Gavino Bitangcol, covered by a transfer certificate of title. The Labarins claim they were given that portion by Gavino as a reward for faithful services, and that their long possession has ripened into ownership. The case matters because it gathers in one decision three rules every reviewee must know: the formal requirement for a donation of immovable property, the rule that registered land cannot be acquired by adverse possession, and the weight of a written admission against interest.

Procedural History

The Bitangcols first demanded that the Labarins vacate, and when the demand was refused they brought an ejectment case before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Olongapo City. That court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the proper action was one for recovery of ownership. The Bitangcols then filed the complaint for recovery of ownership before the Regional Trial Court stationed in Olongapo City. After trial, that court rendered judgment in favor of the Bitangcols, declaring the disputed portion included in the titled property, ordering the Labarins to deliver possession, and imposing costs. The Labarins appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the declaration that the lot formed part of Gavino's estate and the disregard of their defenses of ownership and prescription.

Facts

The subject property is a portion of a lot of 4,822 square meters in Barangay Santa Rita, Olongapo City, originally titled in 1911 and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-7091 in the name of the Estate of Gavino Bitangcol. Gavino was the husband of Susana and the father of Edna and Teresita. He died on July 11, 1983, and his estate was settled in a special proceeding where a compromise agreement adjudicated the lot to the Bitangcols, approved by the court in June 1989.

The Labarins occupy a portion of about 700 square meters, where they erected a house. According to the Bitangcols, the Labarins were employees of Gavino and in 1968 asked permission to live on the lot on the condition that they vacate once Gavino or his heirs needed the property. Gavino agreed, but when the need arose the Labarins refused to leave. On July 25, 1989, the Bitangcols sent a demand letter, and instead of vacating, the Labarins filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application with the Bureau of Lands.

The Labarins answered that they themselves built the house and that Gavino gave them the lot as a reward for faithful services, without any condition of reclamation. They claimed open, adverse possession in the concept of an owner for more than thirty one years, ripening into ownership and barring the complaint by prescription. The trial court ruled for the Bitangcols, and the Labarins appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the disputed portion of 748 square meters is included in the property titled in the name of Gavino Bitangcol.
• Whether or not the alleged verbal donation by Gavino to the Labarins is valid.
• Whether or not the Labarins acquired ownership by acquisitive prescription, and whether or not the action of the Bitangcols is barred by extinctive prescription.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1126 of the Civil Code provides:

Prescription of ownership and other real rights over immovable property shall be governed by the provisions of this Chapter, without prejudice to the provisions of special laws.

This provision sends the question of prescription over registered land to the special law, which is the Land Registration Act.

Act No. 496, the Land Registration Act, provides:

No title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.

This is the provision that defeats the claim of the Labarins that their long occupation ripened into ownership.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err. Both the survey plan submitted by the Bitangcols and the survey plan prepared for the Labarins show that the disputed area lies within the 4,822 square meters covered by the certificate of title. The testimony of the Labarins' own witness, a land surveyor aid and former employee of Gavino, corroborated that the lot given to the Labarins was a portion of the lot Gavino had purchased.

On the second issue, the Court held that even if the portion was given to the Labarins, the donation would be a worthless nullity. A donation of immovable property must be made in a public document, and that requisite was plainly wanting in the verbal donation claimed. The Court also gave weight to the letter of Conchita Labarin dated February 24, 1984, in which she asked the Bitangcols to continue recognizing the Labarins as tenants, promised to vacate whenever the units were needed, and referred to the premises as inherited by the Bitangcols from Gavino. The National Bureau of Investigation confirmed that the signature was hers. The Court called this written admission the last blow to the Labarins' pretensions.

On the third issue, the Court held that both acquisitive and extinctive prescription must fail. Under Article 1126, prescription of ownership over registered land is governed by special laws, and under the Land Registration Act no title in derogation of the registered owner may be acquired by adverse possession. Proof of possession by the Labarins is therefore immaterial and inconsequential. As for extinctive prescription, the adverse claim of the Labarins and the acts supporting it are too recent to sustain it.

Doctrine

First, a donation of immovable property is valid only if made in a public document; a verbal donation conveys nothing and is a nullity. Second, by express provision of the Land Registration Act, no title to registered land in derogation of the registered owner may be acquired by prescription or adverse possession, so occupation of titled land, however long, cannot ripen into ownership. Third, a party's own written admission against interest, confirmed as to its genuineness, is decisive against that party's contrary claim in litigation.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court, which declared the disputed portion part of the titled property, ordered the Labarins to deliver possession to the Bitangcols, and imposed costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that registered land is immune to prescription, so adverse possession of titled property never ripens into ownership. Examiners use this case to test the public document requirement for donations of immovables and the rule against acquisitive prescription over registered land.