SOTERA PAULINO MARCELO, GABRIELA M. ANGELES, SIMEONA CUENCO, EMILIA MARCELO AND RUBEN MARCELO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, FERNANDO CRUZ AND SERVANDO FLORES, RESPOND…

Marcelo versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the heirs of Jose Marcelo against the Court of Appeals, Fernando Cruz, and Servando Flores. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to reverse the appellate court and to reinstate the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, which had ordered the respondents to return the ownership and possession of a portion of unregistered land in Sta. Lucia, Angat, Bulacan. The case matters because it is a compact illustration of how ordinary acquisitive prescription operates over unregistered land, and of how the good faith and just title of a later buyer can cure the violent character of his predecessor's possession.

Procedural History

The petitioners, heirs of the deceased Jose Marcelo, filed an action for recovery of a portion of unregistered land before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 19, on 06 October 1982. The complaint was later amended. The respondents denied the allegations and attacked the jurisdiction of the trial court, claiming that the complaint effectively asserted a cause of action for ejectment or unlawful detainer. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the return of the land and the payment of attorney's fees. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court through this petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Spouses Jose Marcelo and Sotera Paulino owned two parcels of land in Sta. Lucia, Angat, Bulacan, declared for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 2882, and they had been in continuous possession of the property since 1939. After Jose died in 1965, the family discovered in 1967 that a portion of their land had been encroached upon by Fernando Cruz. A relocation survey showed that 7,540 square meters of their lot had been taken.

It turned out that Fernando Cruz had acquired adjoining land from Engracia dela Cruz and the Sarmiento heirs under a document dated 19 November 1960, a partition with sale. That document covered not only 6,000 square meters of riceland but also 7,856 square meters of pasture land, the parang. Shortly after the sale, Cruz declared both parcels in his name, and a new tax declaration was issued for the entire 13,856 square meters. On 03 November 1968, Cruz sold the whole area to Servando Flores under a deed of sale. Flores immediately took possession of the property to the exclusion of all others and promptly paid the realty taxes.

When the petitioners tried to cultivate the disputed portion in 1968, Flores barred them, claiming the area was part of what he had bought from Cruz. From 1968 until the complaint was filed in October 1982, a period of almost fourteen years, Flores possessed the entire area in the concept of an owner. The trial court found that the pasture land was part of the petitioners' property, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Flores had acquired the land by ordinary acquisitive prescription.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Servando Flores acquired the disputed land by ordinary acquisitive prescription.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the findings of fact of the trial court.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1134 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 1134. Ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription through possession of ten years.

This fixes the ten-year period that Flores must satisfy, and the Court measures his possession against it.

Article 1118 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 1118. Possession has to be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted.

This defines the quality of possession required before it can ripen into ownership.

Article 1127 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 1127. The good faith in the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom he received the thing was the owner thereof and could transmit his ownership.

This supplies the standard for measuring Flores's good faith when he bought the land from Cruz.

Article 1129 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 1129. For the purpose of prescription there is just title when the adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right.

This explains why a sale from one who is not the true owner can still serve as just title for prescription.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the requirements of ordinary acquisitive prescription were duly met. The Court first corrected the petitioners' premise: the partition with sale of 19 November 1960 conveyed to Fernando Cruz both the riceland and the pasture land. The deed itself described a parcel of riceland together with pasture land, and Cruz promptly declared both parcels in his name. When Cruz sold the entire 13,856 square meters to Flores in 1968, the disputed portion was included in the sale. Flores took possession in good faith and with just title, because he reasonably believed that Cruz, from whom he received the thing, was the owner and could transmit ownership. His possession was in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted. The Court acknowledged that the possession of Cruz, his predecessor, may not have been peaceful, since it was marred by violence that resulted in the death of Jose Marcelo, but it held that this could not be said of Flores's own possession, against which no contrary evidence appeared. Having possessed the land in the concept of an owner for almost fourteen years, Flores acquired it by ordinary prescription.

On the second issue, the Court found no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the appellate court and gave its affirmance to the assailed decision.

Doctrine

Acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership by a possessor through the requisite lapse of time. To ripen into ownership, possession must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted. Mere possession with a juridical title, such as by a usufructuary, trustee, lessee, agent, or pledgee, cannot ripen into ownership by prescription unless the juridical relation is first expressly repudiated and the repudiation is communicated to the other party. Acts of possessory character done by license or mere tolerance of the owner are likewise inadequate. Ordinary acquisitive prescription of immovable property requires possession in good faith and with just title for ten years. Good faith consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom the thing was received was the owner and could transmit ownership. Just title exists when the adverse claimant comes into possession through a mode recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership, even if the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right. Without good faith and just title, prescription can only be extraordinary.

Disposition

The petition for review on certiorari was denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, with no costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that ordinary acquisitive prescription over immovable property ripens after ten years of possession in good faith and with just title, and the buyer's own peaceful possession is what counts, not the violence of his predecessor. Examiners like to use this case to test the elements of possession in the concept of an owner and the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary prescription.