SPS. NICANOR A. CATRAL AND LOURDES TEANO CATRAL, SUBSTITUTED BY THEIR HEIRS, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, PAULA DICHOSO, JOSE TRINIDAD, JUSTO TRINIDAD, BIBIANA ANTONIO…

This is a petition for
review on certiorari of the decision of the Court
of Appeals dated April 29, 1988 in CA-G.R. CV No. 69507-R affirming the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan in Civil Case No. 1839 dismissing
a complaint for reivindicacion.^[1]

The subject of the
dispute is a 3-hectare northern portion of a larger parcel of land located in
Paret, Alcala, Cagayan, described in Tax Declaration Nos. 4270-A and 11945-A^[2]
in the name of Sebastian Dichoso with an area of 92,034 square meters, more or
less.

This larger parcel of land was originally owned by Sebastian
Dichoso.  After his death in 1921 his
heirs namely his children Mateo, Paula and Maxima all surnamed Dichoso, took
possession of the property as co-owners thereof and divided the same among
themselves.

On April 27, 1951, Mateo Dichoso, now deceased, with the consent
and knowledge of his sisters Paula and Maxima, sold to petitioner Nicanor
Catral, for and in consideration of the amount of P250.00, three hectares of
land comprising the EASTERN third portion of the aforesaid parcel of land as
evidenced by a private writing in Spanish signed by him and his sisters Maxima
and Paula Dichoso.^[3]
Upon its execution, the sum of P120.00 was paid by petitioner Catral to Mateo
Dichoso.  On March 16, 1952 the sum of P30.00 was paid to the
wife of Mateo by said petitioner and on January
11, 1956 the final sum of P100.00 was paid to Mateo.

On February 29, 1956,
a redivision of the aforesaid bigger parcel of land owned in common was caused
among the Dichosos with the northern third portion going to Mateo because the
previous distribution was not equitable according to the two sisters, as the
eastern portion is more elevated than the western portion.  Thus, on the same day, Mateo executed an Escritura de Compraventa – Deed of Sale – conveying to
petitioner Catral the northern third portion in lieu of the eastern third
portion.^[4]

Mateo being a former Justice of the Peace, prepared and executed
the said deed of sale in Spanish, a language he spoke and understood and he had
the same notarized by Judge
Higinio Montila, Ex-Officio Notary Public, being the then Justice of the Peace
of Amulung, Cagayan.  The document was
registered in his Notarial Book as Document No. 14, Page 93, Book 2, Series of
1956.

Petitioner took possession of the land, cleared and cultivated
the same and planted various crops thereon. 
He declared the property in his name^[5]
and paid the taxes thereon including the arrears from 1958 to 1969.^[6]

He enjoyed peaceful possession of the property until after the
death of Mateo when on December 27,
1957, the private respondents wrested the possession thereof from
him.

Hence, this action for recovery of ownership and possession.

The trial court rendered
a decision dated February 10, 1981
in favor of private respondent finding that respondent Paula is the sole owner
of the subject property by acquisitive prescription.  Appealing therefrom to the Court of Appeals
as aforestated, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed in toto
in a decision dated April 29, 1988.

In the herein petition for review of the said decision of the
Court of Appeals, petitioners enumerate six
(6) alleged errors committed by the appellate court, the resolution of
which hinges on the sole issue of who has the better title to the property in
question.

The petition is impressed with merit.  There can be no question that the petitioners
have the right to a reconveyance of the property in question.  The best evidence thereof is the Escritura
de Compraventa – Deed of Sale – dated February 29, 1956.  It is a public document of sale by the former owner Mateo in
favor of petitioners for and in consideration of P250.00 covering the northern
portion of the property in question as hereinabove related.  This is a confirmation of a previous sale of
the eastern third portion of the said parcel of land owned in common by Mateo
and his two sisters respondents Paula and Maxima, whereby after a redivision
among themselves, the northern portion was assigned as the share of Mateo
instead of the eastern portion.

The finding of the court a quo that the property in
question belongs to Paula Dichoso inasmuch as she acquired the same from sister
Domina Dichoso in 1924 and that since then Paula had been in possession of the
property as owner thereof is not borne by the record.  There is no document presented to show the
alleged sale by Domina Dichoso in favor of Paula of the subject property.

There is likewise no proof of how Domina acquired ownership of
the same.  The alleged holographic will
of Sebastian Dichoso by which Domina allegedly derived ownership thereof was
not duly probated.  Moreover, the same
cannot be probated for at the time it was allegedly executed in 1917
holographic wills were not yet recognized as valid instruments of transmission
of hereditary rights under the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190).  It was only upon the enactment of the Civil
Code in 1950 that holographic wills were provided for as an instrument in the
disposition of the property of the deceased.^[7]

On the contrary, what appears is that the property was in fact
co-owned by Mateo Dichoso with sisters Paula and Maxima, so much so that when
Mateo sold the same to petitioner, Paula and Maxima signed their conformity to
the Deed of Sale.

Moreover, assuming that respondent Paula had been in possession of
the subject property since 1924 and continuously thereafter, as admittedly the
property is owned in common by her with Mateo and Maxima, the rule is explicit
that “no prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his
co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the
co-ownership.”^[8]

The tax declarations of the subject property remained in the name
of Sebastian Dichoso.  Respondents Paula
and Maxima appeared in the tax declarations as mere administrators of the property.  They publicly considered themselves as
co-owners of the property as they affixed their conformity to the sale of the
same by Mateo to petitioners.^[9]
The said respondents did not complain when Mateo sold the northern third
portion thereof under document, Exhibit A, after which petitioners took
possession thereof, declared it in their name and cultivated and gathered the
fruits therefrom.  It was only after the
death of Mateo that respondents forciby wrested possession of the property
under pretense of ownership.  Their claim
to the property is certainly fragile.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted and the appealed
decision of the Court of Appeals dated April
29, 1988 is hereby reversed and set aside and another decision is
hereby rendered declaring the petitioners to be the absolute owners of the land
in question, ordering the respondents to deliver possession thereof to the
petitioners, with costs against private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Mr. Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo was the ponente.  The decision was concurred in by
Messrs. Justice Jose C. Campos, Jr. and Ricardo J. Francisco.

^[2]
Exhibits 2 and 3.

^[3]
Exhibit B.

^[4]
Exhibit A.

^[5]
Exhibit C.

^[6]
Exhibits D to D-15.

^[7]
Enriquez vs. Abadia, 95 Phil. 627 (1954); Gan vs. Yap,
104 Phil. 509 (1958); Abangan vs. Abangan, 40 Phil. 476 (1919); and
Mendoza vs. Pilapil, 72 Phil. 546 (1941).

^[8]
Article 494, Civil Code.

^[9]
Exhibit B.