THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PETITIONER VS. MARTINA ABANTAO, ET AL., CLAIMANTS, NARCISA ROSALES, ET AL., CLAIMANTS-APPELLANTS, LORENZO F. CINCO, ET AL., CLAIMANTS-APPELLES.

Director of Lands versus Abantao

The Case

This is an appeal in a cadastral proceeding, the judicial settlement and adjudication of titles to lands within the Catbalogan Cadastre in Samar. The Director of Lands commenced the cadastral case, and the real contest is between two sets of claimants to two lots that once belonged to a common ancestor, Juanson Rosales: on one side the spouses Lorenzo Cinco and Silvina Borja, who claim the lots by purchase from the Government after forfeiture for tax delinquency, and on the other side the Rosales heirs, who claim them by inheritance and insist that Silvina Borja's repurchase should benefit them all as co-heirs. The case matters because it fixes the rule that a repurchase of forfeited property by one co-heir, made for her own exclusive benefit, does not inure to the benefit of the other co-heirs, and that long adverse possession can confirm the purchaser's title by prescription.

Procedural History

The Director of Lands commenced the cadastral case for the settlement and adjudication of titles to the parcels within the Catbalogan Cadastre. The spouses Lorenzo Cinco and Silvina Borja filed their answers claiming ownership of the two lots, and the Rosales claimants filed similar answers claiming co-ownership by inheritance. The cadastral court issued orders of general default. Years later, the spouses Cinco and Borja moved to set their claims for hearing, and the cadastral court, finding the assessed value of the lots to be not more than 2,000 pesos, designated the Justice of the Peace of Catbalogan, Samar to hear and adjudicate the claims. The Justice of the Peace rendered judgment declaring Silvina Borja, married to Lorenzo Cinco, owner of the two lots. The other claimants appealed, and the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court because the issue involved was purely one of law.

Facts

Lots 378 and 1885 of the Catbalogan Cadastre originally belonged to Juanson Rosales, the common ancestor of the claimants. After his death, the lots were declared for taxation purposes in the name of Angel Rosales, one of the co-heirs. The properties became delinquent in the payment of taxes for the year 1908, in the amount of 101 pesos and 7 centavos. On November 16, 1908, the Provincial Treasurer of Samar sent Angel Rosales a notice stating the taxes due, the penalties and costs, and warning that at the expiration of one year from the date of delinquency, unless the taxes and penalties were sooner paid or judicially set aside, the delinquent property would be forfeited and escheated to the Government, the occupants ejected, and title vested in the Government.

The one year elapsed without payment. On October 1, 1909, the Provincial Treasurer ordered the dispossession and ejectment of all tenants and occupants, and on April 25, 1910, the lots were forfeited to the Government. Twelve years later, on June 17, 1922, Silvina Borja applied to the Director of Lands for the repurchase of the lots and tendered payment of all taxes and penalties due up to the year 1921. Her application was approved by the Director of Lands on September 30, 1922. She paid the taxes and penalties, and ownership of the lots was transferred to her.

On March 22, 1932, the Director of Lands commenced the cadastral case. The spouses Cinco and Borja filed their answers claiming ownership by purchase from the Director of Lands, alleging that the land was formerly held by Angel Rosales and co-heirs, who were ejected and later the property was seized and confiscated by the Government. The Rosales claimants filed similar answers claiming co-ownership by inheritance from Juanson Rosales. After the proceedings, the Justice of the Peace rendered judgment declaring Silvina Borja owner of the two lots, and the other claimants appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the repurchase by Silvina Borja of the two lots from the Director of Lands inures to the benefit of her former co-owners and co-heirs.
• Whether or not Silvina Borja acquired the lots by acquisitive prescription to the exclusion of her co-heirs.

Applicable Provisions

The decision refers to Section 380 of the Revised Administrative Code, which Silvina Borja invoked in her application to repurchase, as the basis for paying the taxes and penalties plus the additional penalty of ten per cent. The Court quotes her application as follows:

I have the honor to request that I be allowed to redeem my property under Tax No. 1978, situated in the barrio of Ubanon, municipality of Catbalogan, Samar, P. I., that had been forfeited to the Government for delinquency in the payment of taxes due thereon for the year 1908, by paying all taxes and penalties due up to and including the year 1921, in which the previous owner has been ejected therefrom, plus the additional penalty of 10 per cent in accordance with Section 380 of the Revised Administrative Code.

This provision bears on the case because it is the statutory authority under which the repurchase was made, and the Court uses the wording of the application to show that Silvina Borja intended to redeem the property for her own exclusive benefit.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the repurchase by Silvina Borja did not inure to the benefit of her co-heirs. The Court noted that her application to purchase began with the sentence quoted above, and concluded that it was clear she wanted to repurchase the property for her own exclusive and personal benefit. While she identified herself as one of the legal heirs, that identification did not in any way intend to include the other legal heirs as co-purchasers. The Court also noted that the property was forfeited in favor of the Government in 1910 and remained in its possession until sold to Silvina Borja, so her period of possession should be tacked to that of her predecessor.

On the second issue, the Court held that Silvina Borja acquired the lots not only by purchase but also by acquisitive prescription to the exclusion of her co-heirs. Her application to repurchase was approved on September 30, 1922. She took possession, declared the lots in her name for taxation purposes in December 1922, and enjoyed actual, adverse and uninterrupted possession in the concept of owner for almost 32 years, including that of her predecessor in interest, the Government, up to June 14, 1932, when her possession was interrupted by the filing of a cadastral answer by Narcisa Rosales and Ignacia Rosales claiming to be co-owners.

Doctrine

A repurchase of property forfeited to the Government for tax delinquency, made by one co-heir for her own exclusive and personal benefit, does not inure to the benefit of the other co-heirs. The purchaser's identification of herself as one of the legal heirs does not, by itself, make the other heirs co-purchasers. Moreover, a purchaser who takes possession of the property, declares it in her name for taxation purposes, and enjoys actual, adverse and uninterrupted possession in the concept of owner for the period required by law acquires the property by acquisitive prescription, to the exclusion of the other co-heirs. The period of possession of the Government, as predecessor in interest, is tacked to that of the purchaser.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Justice of the Peace, with costs against the appellants, thereby confirming Silvina Borja as owner of the two lots.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a repurchase by one co-heir for her own exclusive benefit does not inure to the benefit of the other co-heirs, and long adverse possession confirms her title by prescription. Examiners use this case to test the rule on repurchase of forfeited property and the tacking of possession for acquisitive prescription.