Acquisitive Prescription

7/26/2019 Acquisitive Prescription

1/10

Acquisitive Prescription (Ordinary Or Extraordinary)Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring (or losing)ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time inthe manner and under conditions laid down by law, namely,that the possession should be in the concept of an owner,public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse.

Acquisitive prescription is either ordinary or extraordinary.Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in

good faith and with ust title for !" years. #ithout good faithand ust title, acquisitive prescription can only beextraordinary in character which requires uninterruptedadverse possession for $" years.

%hus, for ordinary acquisitive prescription to set in,possession must be for at least !" years, in good faith andwith ust title.

Possession is &in good faith& when there is a reasonablebelief that the person from whom the thing is received hasbeen the owner thereof and could thereby transmit hisownership.

%here is &ust title& when the adverse claimant comes intopossession of the property through any of the modesrecogni'ed by law for the acquisition of ownership or otherreal rights, but the grantor is neither the owner nor in aposition to transmit the right.

pouses Aguirre vs *illanueva, +.. -o. !/0/0, October12, 1""3

Indefeasibility Of Torrens TitleStatutory Basis

Presidential 4ecree (P4) -o. !51/ otherwise 6nown as theProperty egistration 4ecree, provides7

ec. $1. Review of decree of registration; Innocentpurchaser for value. 8 %he decree of registration shall notbe reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, orother disability of any person adversely, affected thereby,nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing

udgments, subject, however, to the right of any person,including the government and the branches thereof,deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by suchadudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud,to file in the proper 9ourt of :irst ;nstance a petition forreopening and review of the decree of registration not later

than one year from and after the date of the entry of suchdecree of registration, but in no case shall such petition beentertained by the court where an innocent purchaser forvalue has acquired the land or an interest therein, whoserights may be preudiced. #henever the phrase


2/10

"#13

1e!edy is to file a Separate Action to 1ecoverte Property (Action for 1econveyance)

egistration, however, does not deprive an aggrieved partyof a remedy in law. #hat cannot be collaterally attac6ed isthe certificate of title and not the title or ownership which isrepresented by such certificate. Ownership is different from

a certificate of title. %he fact that a person was able tosecure a title in his name did not operate to vest ownershipupon him of the subect land. egistration of a piece of landunder the %orrens ystem does not create or vest title,because it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. Acertificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or titleover the particular property described therein. ;t cannot beused to protect a usurper from the true owner@ nor can it beused as a shield for the commission of fraud; neither does it

permit one to enrich himself at the e"pense of others. ;tsissuance in favor of a particular person does not foreclosethe possibility that the real property may be coowned withpersons not named in the certificate, or that it may be heldin trust for another person by the registered owner.

%he remedy is3 to file a separate proceeding, i.e.3an action for specific perfor!ance andBor3 an action forreconveyance of the property. One3 can also file an actionfor rescission.

econveyance is based on ection 55 of Act -o. C/, asamended by Act -o. $$11, which states that in all cases ofregistration procured by fraud the owner may pursue all hislegal and equitable remedies against the parties to suchfraud, without preudice, however, to the rights of anyinnocent holder for value of a certificate of title. ;t is anactionin personam available to a person whose property

has been wrongfully registered under the %orrens system inanotherDs name. ;t does not see6 to set aside the decreebut, respecting it as incontrovertible and no longer open toreview, see6s to transfer or reconvey the land from theregistered owner to the rightful owner. econveyance isalways available as long as the property has not passed toan innocent third person for value

[see /ee vs Ma)do, G.R. No. "#"010, June 0, "#10

One year prescriptive period does not apply2en person questionin" title is inpossession of te property (3uietin" of Title)

%he oneyear prescriptive period, however, does not applywhen the person see6ing annulment of title orreconveyance is in possession of the lot. %his is becausethe action parta6es of a suit to quiet title which isimprescriptible. ;n #avid v $alay, we held that a person inactual possession of a piece of land under claim ofownership may wait until his possession is disturbed or histitle is attac6ed before ta6ing steps to vindicate his right,and his undisturbed possession gives him the continuingright to see6 the aid of a court of equity to ascertain anddetermine the nature of the adverse claim of a third partyand its effect on his title. [Datu Sampaco substituted by

Macabando vs Lantud, G.R. No. 163551, Juy 1!, "#11

9ertificate Of %itle, Eest Fvidence Of Ownership

%he %orrens title is conclusive evidence with respect to theownership of the land described therein, and other matterswhich can be litigated and decided in land registrationproceedings.

%ax declarations and tax receipts cannot prevail over acertificate of title which is an incontrovertible proof ofownership. An original certificate of title issued by theegister of 4eeds under an administrative proceeding is asindefeasible as a certificate of title issued under udicialproceedings.

?owever, indefeasibility of title does not attach to titlessecured by fraud and misrepresentation.

% &orrens title has three attributes7!. a %orrens title is the best evidence of ownership

over registered land and, unless annulled in anappropriate proceeding, the title is conclusive on theissue of ownership@

1. a %orrens title is incontrovertible and indefeasibleupon the expiration of one year from the date of theentry of the decree of registration@ and

$. a %orrens title is not subect to collateral attac6.Gacabando vs >antud, +.. -o. !$55!, Huly !0, 1"!!3

?owever, it is worth pointing out that what cannot becollaterally attac6ed is the certificate of title and not the title

itself. %he certificate referred to is that document issued bythe egister of 4eeds 6nown as the %9%. ;n contrast, thetitle referred to by law means ownership which is, moreoften than not, represented by that document. %itle as aconcept of ownership should not be confused with thecertificate of title as evidence of such ownership althoughboth are interchangeably used.>acbayan vs amoy, +.. -o. !5C12, Garch 1!, 1"!!3

4onation ;nter *ivos

onation inter vivos

#hether a donation is inter vivos or mortis causa dependsupon the nature of the disposition made. I4id the donorintend to transfer the ownership of the property donatedupon the execution of the donationJ ;f this is so, asreflected from the provisions contained in the donation, thenit is inter vivos@ otherwise, it is merely mortis causa, ormade to ta6e effect after death [Reyes vs. Mos:ueda,G.R. No. 05"6", Juy "3, 1#

Ter!s of te deed4 not te caption4 arecontrollin"

;t is a rule consistently followed by the courts that it is thebody of the document of donation and the statementscontained therein, and not the title that should beconsidered in ascertaining the intention of thedonor. [+oncepcion v. +oncepcion, G.R. No. L70""5,

*u$ust "5, 15"

-either the designation mortis causa, nor the provision thata donation is &to ta6e effect at the death of the donor&, is acontrolling criterion in defining the true nature ofdonations [Lau)eta vs. Mata, G.R. No. 120#, Ma)c- "",1"3

%hat the document is captioned &4onation Gortis 9ausa& isnot controlling. ;f a donation by its terms is inter vivos, thischaracter is not altered by the fact that the donor styles itas3 mortis causa. [De Rosa)io vs. ;e))e), G.R. No.1!2#56, Septembe) "#, "#1#

;n Lau)eta vs. Mata [G.R. No. 120#, Ma)c- "", 1"3 thedonation was being made as a reward for servicesrendered and being rendered, and as a to6en of affectionfor the donee@ the phrase Imortis causaI was used@ thedonee to ta6e possession of the property donated only after


3/10

the death of the donor@ the donee was under obligation todefray the expenses incident to the celebration of theanniversary of the donorIs death, including church fees. %hedonation in both cases were duly accepted. ;n said case,the 9ourt held that the donation was in praesenti and not agift in futuro.& ;n other words,the donation was made inconsideration not of the death of the donor but of theaffection to the donee. %he donation was inter vivos andnot mortis causa. %he conditions imposed did not argueagainst the nature of the donation

imilarly, in Reyes vs Mos:ueda [G.R. Nos. 05"6", Juy"3, 1#,the 9ourt ruled that the socalled IdonationGortis causaI is really a donation inter vivos. %he donationwas executed by the donor in favor of his sister out of loveand affection as well as a recognition of the personalservices rendered by the donee to the donor. %he transferof ownership over the properties donated to the donee wasimmediate and independent of the death of the donor. %heprovision as regards the reservation of properties for thedonorIs subsistence in relation to the other provisions of thedeed of donation confirms the intention of the donor to givena6ed ownership of the properties to the donee immediately

after the execution of the deed of donation.

Irrevocability

;n*ust)ia7Ma$at v. +ou)t o *ppeas [G.R. No. 1#6255,;eb)ua)y 1, "##" the 9ourt held that &irrevocability& is aquality absolutely incompatible with the idea ofconveyances mortis causa, where &revocability& is preciselythe essence of the act.

Rese)vations made by dono) t-at do not ne$atei))evocabe c-a)acte)

;n De Rosa)io v. ;e))e) [G.R. No. 1!2#56, Septembe) "#,"#1#the donors reserved the &right, ownership,possession, and administration of the property& and madethe donation operative upon their death. %he court held thatsuch reservation (reddendum) in the context of anirrevocable donation simply means that the donors partedwith their na6ed title, maintaining only beneficial ownershipof the donated property while they lived. ;n the said case,the donors plainly said that it is &our will that this 4onation

Gortis 9ausa shall be irrevocable and shall be respected bythe surviving spouse.& %he intent to ma6e the donationirrevocable becomes even clearer by the proviso that asurviving donor shall respect the irrevocability of thedonation. 9onsequently, the donation was treated as adonation inter vivos.

;n Gestopa v. +ou)t o *ppeas [G.R. No. 111#0,9ctobe) 5, "### the 9ourt held that the prohibition toalienate does not necessarily defeat the inter vivoscharacter of the donation. ;t even highlights the fact thatwhat remains with the donor is the right of usufruct and nolonger the na6ed title of ownership over the propertydonated.

;n +uevas v. +uevas [G.R. No. L7!3"2, Decembe) 10,155, the donor reserved to herself &the right ofpossession, cultivation, harvesting and other rights andattributes of ownership while ; am not deprived of life by the

Almighty&. -otwithstanding such reservation, the 9ourt heldthat the decisive proof that the donation is operative intervivos lies in a subsequent phrase in the deed to the effectthat the donor will not dispose or ta6e away the property

&because ; reserve it for him (the donee) when ; die.& Eythese words the donor expressly renounced the right tofreely dispose of the property in favor of another (a rightessential to full ownership) and manifested the irrevocabilityof the conveyance of the na6ed title to the property in favorof the donee. uch irrevocability is characteristic ofdonations inter vivos, because it is incompatible with theidea of a disposition post mortem. %he deed was a validdonation inter vivos, with reservation of beneficial titleduring the lifetime of the donor.

elivery to ta0e effect upon deat of donor

;n the case of Joya vs.


4/10

Fven if we sustain the petitionersD arguments and rule that the deeds of sale are valid contracts, it would still

not bolster the petitionersD case. ;n a number of cases, the 9ourt had upheld the registered ownersD superior right topossess the property. ;n Co v $ilitar, the 9ourt was confronted with a similar issue of which between the certificate oftitle and an unregistered deed of sale should be given more probative weight in resolving the issue of who has thebetter right to possess. %here, the 9ourt held that the court a -uo correctly relied on the transfer certificate of title inthe name of petitioner, as opposed to the unregistered title in the name of respondents. %he 9ourt stressed thereinthat the %orrens ystem was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the most effective measure toguarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established andrecogni'ed.

>i6ewise, in the recent case of .mpoc v $ercado, the 9ourt declared that the trial court did not err in giving

more probative weight to the %9% in the name of the decedent vis/0/vis the contested unregistered 4eed ofale. >ater in%rambulo v ungab, the 9ourt held that the registered owner is preferred to possess the propertysubect of the unlawful detainer case. %he ageold rule is that the person who has a %orrens %itle over a land isentitled to possession thereof. (9itations omitted.)

As the titleholder, therefore, petitioner is preferred to possess the entire >ot 0$. Eesides, there are telltale signs which castdoubt on the genuineness of the *asulatan. %o cite a few7

!. %he date of its execution unbelievably coincides with the date the buyer, Anastacia, died@

1. 4espite its alleged execution on April !2, !/2$, respondents brought up the *asulatan only when petitioner as6edthem to vacate the disputed premises. Prior thereto, they neither asserted their rights thereunder nor registered the samewith the proper egistry of 4eeds@

$. %he lawyer who notari'ed the *asulatan sa +ilihan, as well as the witnesses thereto, was not presented in court@

and,

C. %he 4istrict >and Officer who signed O9% -o. P/$5C by authority of the President is a public officer who has in hisfavor the presumption of regularity in issuing said title.

&orrens certificate of title cannot be the subject of collateral attac1

Goreover, respondentsD attac6 on the validity of petitionerDs title by claiming that their mother became the true owner of thesouthern portion of >ot 0$ even before the issuance of O9% -o. P/$5C constitutes as a collateral attac6 on said title. ;t is an attac6incidental to their quest to defend their possession of the property in an accion publiciana, not in a direct action whose main obective isto impugn the validity of the udgment granting the title. 1/3 %his cannot be allowed. Lnder ection C0 of Presidential 4ecree -o. !51/,otherwise 6nown as the Property egistration 4ecree, a certificate of title cannot be the subect of collateral attac6. %hus7

F9. C0. Certificate not subject to collateral attac1M A certificate of title shall not be subect to collateralattac6. ;t cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

A collateral attac6 transpires when, in another action to obtain a different relief and as an incident to the present action, anattac6 is made against the udgment granting the title. $"3 %his manner of attac6 is to be distinguished from a direct attac6 against a

udgment granting the title, through an action whose main obective is to annul, set aside, or enoin the enforcement of such udgment ifnot yet implemented, or to see6 recovery if the property titled under the udgment had been disposed of. $!3 %hus, in $agay vEstiandan,$13therein plaintiffappellee filed an accion publiciana. ;n his defense, defendantappellant alleged among others that plaintiffappelleeDs %ransfer 9ertificate of %itle -o. 1""C was issued under anomalous circumstances. #hen the case reached this 9ourt, wereected defendantappellantDs defense on the ground that the issue on the validity of said title can only be raised in an action expresslyinstituted for that purpose. Also, in Co v Court of %ppeals$$3we arrived at the same conclusion and elaborated as follows7

;n their reply dated eptember !//", petitioners argue that the issues of fraud and ownership raised in their

socalled compulsory counterclaim parta6e of the nature of an independent complaint which they may pursue for thepurpose of assailing the validity of the transfer certificate of title of private respondents. %hat theory will not prosper.

#hile a counterclaim may be filed with a subect matter or for a relief different from those in the basic

complaint in the case, it does not follow that such counterclaim is in the nature of a separate and independent action initself. ;n fact, its allowance in the action is subect to explicit conditions, as above set forth, particularly in its requiredrelation to the subect matter of opposing partyDs claim. :ailing in that respect, it cannot even be filed and pursued as

an altogether different and original action.;t is evident that the obective of such claim is to nullify the title of private respondents to the property in

question, which thereby challenges the udgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. %his is apparently acollateral attac6 which is not permitted under the principle of indefeasibility of a %orrens title. ;t is well settled thata %orrens title cannot be collaterally attac6ed. %he issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulentlyissued, can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. ?ence, whether or not petitioners havethe right to claim ownership of the land in question is beyond the province of the instant proceeding. %hat should bethreshed out in a proper action.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/164402.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/164402.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/164402.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/164402.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/164402.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/164402.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/164402.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/164402.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/164402.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/164402.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/164402.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/164402.htm#_ftn33


5/10

#919 5o9


6/10

no right to occupy it and build on it. %he 9ourt of Appeals was correct in calling them squatters for having entered, without

permission or authority, land that did not belong to them.

;n urging reversal of the trial court and the respondent court, the petitioners are as6ing us to overturn long established

doctrines guaranteeing the integrity of the %orrens system and the indefeasibility of titles issued thereunder for the protection

and peace of mind of the registered owner against illegal encroachments upon his property. #e are not disposed to ta6e

this drastic step on the basis alone of their feeble arguments.

P1ESIE5TIA$ EC1EE 5o9 %*+

A-E5I5# A5 COI,I5# T?E $ADS 1E$ATI8E TO 1E#IST1ATIO5 O, P1OPE1T A5 ,O1 OT?E1

P61POSES

Section ;=9Registered land not subject to prescriptions-o title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registeredowner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession

As stated by Hustice Hohnson in the !/!5 case of >egarda vs. aleeby, $! Phil. 5/" the real purpose of the %orrens systemis to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality. &Once a title is registered, the owner may restsecure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the Imirador de sucasaI, to avoid the possibilityof losing his land.&

Adverse, notorious and continuous possession under a claim of ownership for the period fixed by law is ineffective against a%orrens title (%uason vs. EolaNos, /5 Phil. !"@ !!!@ *da. de ecinto vs. ;nciong, >1"0$, Gay $!, !/22, 22 9A !/@H.G. %uason 9o., ;nc. vs. 9ourt of Appeals, >1$C0", eptember !!, !/2/,/$ 9A !C).

%itle to land can no longer be acquired by prescription after a %orrens title has been issued for it (4imson vs. ural Progress

Administration, /" Phil. 2!C, 2!2@ :ernande' vs. Aboratigue, >15$!$, 4ecember 10, !/2", $ 9A C2).

%he right to recover possession of registered land is imprescriptible because possession is a mere consequence of

ownership (Atun vs. -une', /2 Phil. 21@ Ganlapas and %olentino vs. >lorente, C0 Phil. 1/0, $"0@ H.G. %uason 9o., ;nc. vs.

Aguirre, !!2 Phil. !!", !!$!!C).

epublic of the Philippines

upreme 9ourt

Ganila

SECO5 I8ISIO5


7/10

?EI1S O, 7OSE -A$I#ASO4 S194 na!ely4A5TO5IO -A$I#ASO4 CA1-E$O -A$I#ASO and7OSE -A$I#ASO4 7194 Petitioners4

versus

SPO6SES SI-O5 9 E5CI5AS andESPE1A5A E9 E5CI5AS4 1espondents9

+.. -o. !012!Present79AP;O, .,

Chairperson,E;O-PFFK,FF-O, and

FF, .Promulgated7Hune 1", 1"!1

xx

ECISIO5

1EES4 J.F

%his is a petition for review under ule C5 of theules of 9ourt of the 4ecision!3dated -ovember 1,

1""2 and esolution

13

dated April 10, 1""0 of the 9ourt ofAppeals (9A) in 9A+.. P -o. C225. %he 9Areversed and set aside the 4ecision$3dated April 1, 1""!of Eranch 5! of the egional %rial 9ourt (%9) oforsogon, orsogon, which affirmed the 4ecision C3dated

August 11, 1""" of the Gunicipal %rial 9ourt (G%9) oforsogon, orsogon dismissing the pouses imon 4.Fncinas and Fsperan'a F. FncinasD (respondents)complaint for unlawful detainer.

espondents are the registered owners of >ot -o.

$5!2 of the 9adastral urvey of orsogon, which has anarea of 1,02 square meters and covered by %ransfer9ertificate of %itle (%9%) -o. %C22$. 53 %he subect matter

of this controversy is a portion of >ot -o. $5!2 with anarea of /0" square meters, which the ?eirs of HoseGaligaso, r. (petitioners) continue to occupy despitehaving received two (1) notices to vacate from therespondents.

>ot -o. $5!2 was previously covered by Original9ertificate of %itle (O9%) -o. 5C$, which was issued in thename of Garia Galigaso amos (Garia), the petitionersDaunt, on :ebruary 2, !/1/. ometime in Gay !/5, Gariasold >ot -o. $5!2 to *irginia Fscurel (*irginia). %hree ($)years later, on April 5, !/0, *irginiasold >ot -o. $5!2 tothe respondents, resulting to the cancellation of O9% -o.

5C$ and issuance of %9% -o. %C22$.3

On Garch !, !//0 and Hune !/, !//0or approximately thirty ($") years from the time theypurchased >ot -o. $5!2, the respondents issued two (1)demand letters to the petitioners, as6ing them to vacatethe contested area within thirty ($") days from notice.23 %he petitioners refused to leave, claiming that thesubect area was the share of their father, Hose Galigaso,r. (Hose, r.), in their grandparentsD estate. %hus, therespondents filed a complaint for unlawful detaineragainst them with the G%9, alleging that the petitionersDoccupation is by mere tolerance and had become illegal

following their refusal to vacate the property despite beingdemanded to do so twice.

%he petitioners, in their defense, denied that theirpossession of the disputed area was by mere toleranceand claimed title thereto on the basis of their fatherDssuccessional rights. %hat the petitionersD occupationremained undisturbed for more than thirty ($") years andthe respondentsD failure to detail and specify thepetitionersD supposedly tolerated possession suggest thatthey and their predecessorsininterest are aware of theirclaim over the subect area. %he petitioners also attac6ed

the validity of O9% -o. 5C$ and %9% -o. %C22$, allegingthat it was thru fraud that Garia was able to register >ot-o. $5!2, including the disputed area, under hername. %he petitioners li6ewise moved for the dismissal of

the complaint, claiming that the allegations thereinindicate that it was actually an action for reconveyance. :urther, laches had already set in view ofthe respondentsD failure to assail their possession formore than thirty ($") years.03

;n an August 11, 1""" 4ecision, /3the dispositive

portion of which is quoted below, the G%9 dismissed therespondentsD complaint.

#?FF:OF, premises considered,udgment is hereby rendered

%9 is!issin" te instant

case

*9 Ad/udicatin" tepossessory ri"ts over teliti"ated portion to tedefendants

'9 Orderin" te 1e"ister of

eeds to cause te annotationof te equitable title ofdefendants4 2o are entitled toteir faterGs ri"tfulineritance 2ic is part of te

property in plaintiffsG TCT 5o9TH;==' as a lien or encu!brance

;9 Orderin" te plaintiffs to

pay defendants te a!ount ofPJ%&4&&&9&& as attorneyGs feesand

9 Te cost of suit9

SO O1E1E.!"3

%he G%9 gave more weight to the petitionersDpossession of the contested area than the respondentsDtitle as the former is founded on Hose r.Ds successionalrights and even held that the registration of >ot -o. $5!2in GariaDs name created a trust in Hose r.Ds favor insofaras the disputed portion is concerned. %he G%9 also heldthat the respondents are barred by laches from pursuingtheir cause of action against the petitioners given theirinaction for more than thirty ($") years despite being fullyaware of the petitionersD adverse possession and claimover the subect property.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn10


8/10

%he %9 dismissed the respondentsD appeal and

affirmed the G%9Ds 4ecision dated August 11, 1""". ;n a4ecision!!3dated April 1, 1""!, the %9 found therespondentsD allegations relative to the petitionersD merelytolerated possession of the subect area to be wanting.%he %9 also concluded, albeit implicitly, that thepetitionersD possession is a necessary consequence oftheir title as evidenced by their occupation in the conceptof an owner for a significant period of time. %hedispositive portion thereof states7

D?E1E,O1E, premisesconsidered, the appealed decisionis A,,I1-Ewith the modification thatthe annotations and the payment ofattorneyD3s fees as ordered by the9ourt a -uobe deleted. %he instantappeal is IS-ISSE, for lac6 of merit.!13

9onsequently, the respondents filed with the 9A apetition for review under ule C1 of the ules of

9ourt. %his was given due course and the %9Ds4ecision dated April 1, 1""! was reversed and setaside. ;n its 4ecision!$3dated -ovember 1, 1""2, the9A had a different view and rationali'ed the grant ofpossession to the respondents as follows7

%he rule is wellentrenched that aperson who has a %orrens title over theproperty is entitled to the possessionthereof. ;n li6e manner, prior physicalpossession by the plaintiff is notnecessary in unlawful detainer cases asthe same is only required in forcible entry

cases. Goreover, the allegations in theanswer of the3 defendant as to the nullityof plaintiffDs title is unavailing and has noplace in an unlawful detainer suit sincethe issue of the validity of a %orrens titlecan only be assailed in an actionexpressly instituted for thatpurpose. %his may be gleanedfrom Spouses Apostol vs9 Court ofAppeals and Spouses E!!anuel,where the upreme 9ourt held that7

x x x;n the case at bench, petitioners

are the registered owners of >ot -o. $5!2and, as a consequence of such, areentitled to the material and physicalpossession thereof. %hus, both the G%9and %9 erred in ruling that respondentsDprior physical possession and actualpossession of the /0"square meterdisputed portion of >ot -o. $5!2 shouldprevail over petitionersD %orrenstitle overthe said property. uch pronouncementcontravenes the law and settled

urisprudence on the matter.!C3 (9itation

omitted)

%he 9A denied the petitionersD motion forreconsideration in its esolution dated April 10, 1""0.!53

As earlier intimated, the petitioners anchor their

possession of the subect property on their fatherDs rightthereto as one of his parentsD heirs. %he petitioners insiston the nullity of the respondentsD title, %9% -o. %C22$, asthe inclusion of the contested area in its coverage wasnever intended. %he petitioners accuse Garia of fraud for

having registered >ot -o. $5!2 in her name, including theportion that their father allegedly inherited from hisparents, thus, reneging on her promise to cause theregistration of such portion in his name. ;t was their fatherwho had a legitimate claim over the subect area andGaria never acquired any right thereto. %herefore,respondentsD purchase of >ot -o. $5!2 did not include theportion occupied by the petitioners, who succeeded toHose r.Ds rights thereto.

On the other hand, the respondentsD cause of

action is based on their ownership of >ot -o. $5!2, whichis evidenced by %9% -o. %C22$, and on their claim thatthey merely tolerated the petitionersD occupationthereof. According to the respondents, their beingregistered owners of >ot -o. $5!2, including the portionpossessed by the petitioners, entitles them to thepossession thereof and their right to recovery can neverbe barred by laches. %hey also maintain that thepetitioners cannot collaterally attac6 their title to thesubect property.

%he point of inquiry is whether the respondents

have the right to evict the petitioners from the subectproperty and this should be resolved in the respondentsDfavor. Eetween the petitionersD unsubstantiated selfserving claim that their father inherited the contestedportion of >ot -o. $5!2 and the respondentsD %orrens title,the latter must prevail. %he respondentsD title over sucharea is evidence of their ownership thereof. %hat acertificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasibleand incontrovertible title to the property in favor of theperson whose name appears therein and that a personwho has a %orrens title over a land is entitled to thepossession thereof!3are fundamental principlesobserved in this urisdiction. Alternatively put, the

respondentsD title and that of their predecessorsininterest give rise to the reasonable presumption that thepetitioners have no right over the subect area and thattheir stay therein was merely tolerated. %he petitionersfailed to overcome this presumption, being inadequatelyarmed by a narration that yearns for proof andcorroboration. %he petitioners harped that the subectarea was their fatherDs share in his parentsD estate but theabsence of any evidence that such property was indeedadudicated to their father impresses that their claim ofownership is nothing but a mere afterthought. ;n fact, >ot-o. $5!2 was already registered in GariaDs name whenHose r. built the house where the petitioners are nowpresently residing. ;t is rather specious that Hose r.chose inaction despite GariaDs failure to cause theregistration of the subect area in his name and would becontented with a bungalow that is erected on a propertythat is supposedly his but registered in anotherDs name.%hat there is allegedly an unwritten agreement betweenGaria and *irginia that Hose r.Ds and the petitionersDpossession of the subect area would remain undisturbedwas never proven, hence, cannot be the basis for theirclaim of ownership. ather than proving that Hose r. andthe petitioners have a right over the disputed portion of>ot -o. $5!2, their possession uncoupled with affirmativeaction to question the titles of Garia and the respondentsshow that the latter merely tolerated their stay.

:orcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are

summary proceedings designed to provide for anexpeditious means of protecting actual possession or theright to the possession of the property involved. %heavowed obective of actions for forcible entry and unlawfuldetainer, which have purposely been made summary innature, is to provide a peaceful, speedy and expeditiousmeans of preventing an alleged illegal possessor ofproperty from unustly continuing his possession for along time, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peaceand order in the community.!23%he said obectives can
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn17


9/10


10/10

possession wasunauthoried or merelytolerated, if at all &hisright is never barred bylaches1$3 (9itationsomitted)

;t is, in fact, the petitioners who are guilty oflaches. Petitioners, who claimed that Garia fraudulentlyregistered the subect area inherited by their father, didnot lift a finger to question the validity of O9% -o. 5C$,which was issued in !/1/. Petitioners waited for the lapseof a substantial period of time and if not for therespondentsD demands to vacate, they would not havebothered to assert their fatherDs supposed successionalrights. %he petitionersD inaction is contrary to the postureta6en by a reasonably diligent person whose rights havesupposedly been trampled upon and the pretense of

ignorance does not provide ustification or refuge. Gariawas able to register >ot -o. $5!2 in her name as early as!/1/ and respondents acquired title in April 5, !/0 and6nowledge of these events is imputed to the petitionersby the fact of registration.

;n fine, this 9ourt finds no cogent reason to

reverse and set aside the findings and conclusions of the9A.

D?E1E,O1E, premises considered, the petition

is E5IEand the 4ecision dated -ovember 1, 1""2and esolution dated April 10, 1""0 of the 9ourt of

Appeals in 9A+.. P -o. C225 arehereby A,,I1-E.

SO O1E1E9

.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn23

Documents

Acquisitive Prescription