LICOTEDRA PARCOTILO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. FILOMENA PARCOTILO, CRISPIN PRIETO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

ZALDIVAR. J.:

An appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Occidental
Misamis in its Civil Case No. 1858, which was an action for partition.

The plaintiffs, Licotedra Parcotilo, Maria Parcotilo, Epifania Parcotilo,
Raymundo Parcotilo, Corazon Parcotilo, Perpetua Parcotilo, Aladino Parcotilo and
Francisco Parcotilo, are nephews and/or nieces of one Pablo Parcotilo. The
defendant Filomena Parcotilo is the sister of Pablo Parcotilo; the defendant
Demetrio Parcotilo is the son of defendant Filomena Parcotilo, and, therefore,
is another nephew of Pablo Parcotilo; the defendant Victor Parcotilo is the son
of the defendant Demetrio Parcotilo; and the defendant Vicenta Parcotilo Baji is
another niece of Pablo Parcotilo. The defendant Crispin Prieto is made a party
in the present case because it is alleged that he had bought from the defendant
Demetrio Parcotilo a portion of one of the two parcels of land that are in
question.

The defendant Vicenta Parcotilo Baji is included as defendant because she was
not willing to join as a party plaintiff.

The plaintiffs alleged that Pablo Parcotilo, during his lifetime, owned and
possessed two parcels of land locate at Sitio Tuburan, Barrio Villaflor,
Municipality of Oro quieta, in the province of Misamis Occidental; that
Parcotilo was married to Filomena Dipolog, that both died during the cholera
epidemic of the year 1918, and that they were not survived by any descendant or
ascendant. It was therefore claimed by the plaintiffs, who are the children of
the brothers and/or sisters of Pablo Parcotilo, that they are the co-owners,
together with the defendant Filomena Parcotilo who was the surviving sister of
Pablo Parcotilo and Vicenta Parcotilo Baji who was also a niece of Pablo
Parcotilo, of the two parcels of land left by said Pablo Parcotilo.

The complaint which was filed on January 23,1956, seeks, to partition among
the plaintiffs and the defendants Filomena Parcotilo and Vicenta Parcotilo Baji
the two parcels of land in question. .The plaintiffs claimed that sometime on
July 30, 1936, the defendant Demetrio Parcotilo subscribed and swore to an
affidavit before the Deputy Provincial Assessor declaring that he was the only
son and heir of the late Pablo Parcotilo, and in so doing he procured the
transfer to his name of the tax declarations covering the two parcels of land
which were in the name of Pablo Parcotilo. The plaintiffs also alleged that in
1936 the defendant Demetrio Parcotilo sold to the defendant Crispin Prieto a
portion of one of the two parcels of land that were left by Pablo Parcotilo. It
was further alleged by the plaintiffs that defendant Victor Parcotilo, in
collusion with his father, the defendant Demetrio Parcotilo, procured the
transfer to his name of the lax declarations which were in the name of his
father.

The defendant Vicenta Parcotilo Baji, in her answer, manifested that she had
no interest whatsoever in the property under litigation and that she was not
interested in whatever would be the outcome of the case.

The defendant Crispin Prieto, in his answer, alleged that in 1936 he
purchased an area of about 4312 hectares of rice land from his co-defendant
Demetrio Parcotilo, which was a portion of one of the two parcels of land that
were then in the possession of Demetrio Parcotilo. Crispin Prieto claimed that
he bought that portion in the belief that Demetrio Parcotilo was the true and
absolute owner of the land, the transaction being evidenced by a public
instrument; and that since 1936 he had been in possession of the portion that he
had bought, actually, openly, and continuously up to the time when the complaint
in this case was filed on January 23, 1956.

The defendant Demetrio Parcotilo, in his answer, alleged that he acquired the
lands in question by virtue of a donation mortis causa, executed by the late
Pablo Parcotilo and Filomena Dipolog on July 20, 1917, and that after the death
of these spouses in 1918 he immediately took possession of those two parcels of
land in good faith, he had introduced improvements thereon, and had since then
been in possession of said lands actually, publicly, and uninterruptedly, under
a claim of ownership adverse to all other rights up to the time when the
complaint in this case was filed on January 23, 1956.

The other defendants, Filomena Parcotilo and Victor Parcotilo, who are mother
and son respectively of defendant Demetrio Parcotilo, join in the claim that
said Demetrio Parcotilo had acquired the two parcels of land in question from
the late spouses Pablo Parcotilo and Filomena Dipolog and had become the
absolute owner thereof, with right to convey same to other persons.

After trial, the lower court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint.
The pertinent portion of said decision, which embodies the findings of facts and
conclusions of the lower court, reads as follows:

“That the two parcels of land described in the complaint were conjugal
properties of the late spouses Pablo Parcotilo and Filomena Dipolop, otherwise
called and known as Filomena Botanog; that on July 20, 1917, Filomena Dotanog,
alias Dipolog executed a testament without the requisite of law, convoying the
conjugal property in question to Demetrio Parcotilo a nephew of her husband
Pablo Parcotilo. Pablo Parcotilo, however also signed the said testament Exh.
‘1’, with translation Exh. ‘1-a’. Upon the death of the spouses in 1918,
Demetrio Parcotilo assorted ownership of the land in question without anybody
raising any protest, and only recently the plaintiffs claim to be entitled to
share with the land in question as co-heirs in the estate of the late Pablo
Parcotilo.

‘The plaintiffs tried to prove that Luis Parcotilo youngest brother of Pablo
Parcotito was the one who lately possessed and enjoyed the land in question, but
it is an uncontradicted fact that in the document of sale whereby Demetrio
Parcotilo conveyed thru sale a portion of the land in question in favor of
Crispin Prieto, said Luis Parcotilo signed only as a witness implying that he
never asserted ownership of said land.

“In short, the Court finds that although the testament Exh. ‘1’ is null and
void for lack of legal requisites, it is nevertheless a good ground on which to
base acquisitive prescription. There is no doubt that the plaintiffs would have
the right to demand shares to the land in question if they acted promptly before
the period of prescription had elapsed.

“It is regretable that the filing of this case has been too late when they
had already lost their right thereto.

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the
complaint with costs against the plaintiffs.”

The plaintiffs appealed from the decision of the trial court.

The findings of the lower court that the defendant Demetrio Parcotilo had
acquired ownership of the two parcels of land in question through adverse
possession are amply supported by the record. The document which was executed
jointly by the spouses Pablo Parcotilo and Filomena Botanog on July 20, 1917
(Exh. 1-A) contains the following provisions, among others:

“3. TESTAMENT – The said land and the house that we bequeath to no other
person but to my nephew already mentioned above because he is the only one who
served us throughout, that is why we love him and favor him because of his
services to us spouses; that our immovable properties, to make known to all
residents in this District No. 7, Tuburan and in order to make perfect the truth
of this written present testament, my nephews, as well as the nephews of my wife
are excluded, likewise my relatives on both sides including the relatives of my
wife on both sides, no one of them can question the properties above mentioned
because they have no right of ownership except the one served us as we consider
him our faithful son.”

We agree with the court that even if the document Exh. “1-a” was not executed
with all the requisites of a valid will or of a valid donation mortis
causa the said document supplied the basis for the claim of ownership by the
defendant Demetrio Parcotilo of the two parcels of land in question after the
death of the spouses Pablo Parcotilo and Filomena Botanog. This claim of
ownership by Demetrio Parcotilo, coupled with his open, continuous and adverse
possession for a period of thirty-eight years had ripened into a title by
prescription (Pensader vs. Pensader, 47 Phil. 959, 961).

In their complaint the plaintiffs-appellants had alleged that in 1936
Demetrio Parcotilo caused the tax declarations of those two parcels of land,
which were formerly in the name of Pablo Parcotilo, to be transferred to his
name. It is also alleged in the complaint that in 1936 Demetrio Parcotilo sold a
portion of one of the two parcels of land in question to his co-defendant
Crispin Prieto. Incidentally, the trial court found that Luis Parcotilo, one of
the brothers of the late Pablo Parcotilo, was a witness to the deed of sale
executed by Demetrio Parcotilo in favor of Crispin Prieto; and this indicated
that Luis Parcotilo, as a brother of Pablo Parcotilo, had recognized the
ownership of Demetrio Parcotilo of the land that was sold to Crispin Prieto. It
is further alleged in the complaint that in 1952 the defendant Demetrio
Parcotilo caused the tax declarations of these lands in question to be
transferred to the name of his son Victor Parcotilo. All these circumstances, as
brought forth by the plaintiffs-appellants in their pleadings, were indications
of the claim of ownership of Demetrio Parcotilo over the two parcels of land in
question, exclusive of any other right and adverse to all other claimants; and
this adverse claim of Demetrio Parcotilo bolstered by his actual, open and
continuous possession for a period of over thirty years had ripened into a
title. The adverse possession of defendant Demetrio Parcotilo from 1918 to 1936
had redounded to the benefit of the defendant Crispin Prieto as far as the
portion that the latter had brought from Demetrio Parcotilo was concerned; and
the defendant Crispin Prieto had adverse possession of the portion which he had
brought from Demetrio Parcotilo for a period of about twenty years before the
filing of the complaint in the present case.

The lands in question being unregistered lands, and the rights of the
defendants Demetrio Parcotilo and Crispin Prieto having accrued before the New
Civil Code went into effect, the law applicable is Sec. 41 of Act 190, the old
Code of Civil Procedure, which provide as follows:

“SEC. 41. Title to land by prescription. — Ten years actual adverse
possession by any person claiming to be the owner for that time of any land or
interest in land, uninterruptedly continued for ten years by occupancy, descent,
grants, or otherwise, in whatever way such occupancy may have commenced
or continued, shall vest in every actual occupant or possessor of such land a
full and complete title, saving to the persons under disabilities the rights
secured by the next section. In order to constitute such title by prescription
or adverse possession, the possession by the claimant or by the person under or
through whom he claims must have been actual, open, public, continuous, under a
claim of title exclusive of any other right and ad verse to all other claimants
. . . .” (Italics supplied).

Even the provisions of Article 1137 of the New Civil Code on extraordinary
prescription through uninterrupted adverse possession for thirty years,
regardless of whether there was title or good faith, uphold the right of the
defendant Pablo Parcotilo as owner through adverse possession in this present
case.

The decision of the lower court is in accordance with law and finds support
in a long line of decisions of this Court (Bargayo vs. Camumot, 40 Phil. 857;
Pensader vs. Pensander, 47 Phil. 959; Dimanlig vs. Cusi, 48 Phil. 394; Dadivas
vs. Bunayon, 54 Phil. 632).

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the
plaintiffs-appellants.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, Regain, Makalintal and Bengzon, J. P., JJ.
concur.