Case
Case title title Facts Facts DoctrineDoctrine
Godinez
Godinez v. v. CA CA 7 7 Bergado Bergado heirs heirs inherited inherited a a lot lot from from their their deceaseddeceased father Felix Bergado. Judge Pablo mistakenly father Felix Bergado. Judge Pablo mistakenly entered 1/6 instead of 1/7 (partition). Because of entered 1/6 instead of 1/7 (partition). Because of that error and other clerical errors, no
that error and other clerical errors, no decree wasdecree was issued and the heirs didn’t obtain a
issued and the heirs didn’t obtain a Torrens title.Torrens title. Lots were transferred to Patalinghug and Lots were transferred to Patalinghug and
Magsumbol. Magsumbol sold the land to the Igots. Magsumbol. Magsumbol sold the land to the Igots. 38 yrs after Judge Pablo rendered his
38 yrs after Judge Pablo rendered his decision,decision, Judge Mendoza corrected the clerical errors in Judge Mendoza corrected the clerical errors in Jud
Judge Pablo’s decision and the land becamege Pablo’s decision and the land became registered (1967). Igots sued some Bergado heirs registered (1967). Igots sued some Bergado heirs (Godinez) for the reconveyance of their lot. (Godinez) for the reconveyance of their lot.
Magsumbols acquired the lot through sec 41 of Magsumbols acquired the lot through sec 41 of thethe Code of Civil Procedure and that right
Code of Civil Procedure and that right waswas transmitted to the Igots.
transmitted to the Igots. T
The Code of Civil Procedure’s prescriptive periodhe Code of Civil Procedure’s prescriptive period shall be followed in the case at bar.
shall be followed in the case at bar.
The MAGSUMBOLS had been in continuous, The MAGSUMBOLS had been in continuous, uninterrupted and notorious possession of the land uninterrupted and notorious possession of the land for more than half a century and the canons of for more than half a century and the canons of common sense side with them.
common sense side with them. Heirs
Heirs of of Amarante Amarante v. v. CA CA Infiel Infiel had had possession possession of of the the land land long long beforebefore WW2. Almarante and the heirs of
WW2. Almarante and the heirs of Infiel had beenInfiel had been in peaceful possession of the land after Infiel’s in peaceful possession of the land after Infiel’s death. Their possession was disturbed by Bolo, death. Their possession was disturbed by Bolo, common-law husband of one of Felix Malon common-law husband of one of Felix Malonis’is’ grandchildren. He claimed that he bought the grandchildren. He claimed that he bought the property. Bolo relied on tax declarations on property. Bolo relied on tax declarations on claiming the land.
claiming the land.
Evidence of possession: The coconut trees are Evidence of possession: The coconut trees are approximately 70 yrs of age. Conclusion: Infiel had approximately 70 yrs of age. Conclusion: Infiel had begun occupying the area a very long time ago. begun occupying the area a very long time ago. Possession already exceeded 30 years, which is Possession already exceeded 30 years, which is the period for extraordinary prescription provided the period for extraordinary prescription provided for in Art. 1137 of
for in Art. 1137 of the Civil Code. (Extraordinarythe Civil Code. (Extraordinary prescription)
prescription)
On Section 48(b) of the Commonwealth Land Act On Section 48(b) of the Commonwealth Land Act o XXX
o XXX Those who by themselves or through Those who by themselves or through theirtheir
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous
in-interest have been in open, continuous and exclusiveand exclusive possession and occupati
possession and occupation of agricultural lands under aon of agricultural lands under a bonafide claim for ownership XXX for at least thirty bonafide claim for ownership XXX for at least thirty years XXX
years XXX Republic
Republic v. v. CA CA Baloy Baloy applied applied to to register register his his land land but but the the Bureau Bureau ofof Lands opposed alleging that the land has become Lands opposed alleging that the land has become public through Act 627 pursuant to the
public through Act 627 pursuant to the EOEO declaring the area to be within
declaring the area to be within US NavalUS Naval Reservation. Baloy failed to file his claim Reservation. Baloy failed to file his claim w/inw/in prescriptive period.
prescriptive period.
Under the provision,
Under the provision, private land can only beprivate land can only be deemed to have become public land only by deemed to have become public land only by virtue of a judicial declaration after due notice virtue of a judicial declaration after due notice and hearing.
and hearing. None of these were followed. LandNone of these were followed. Land is still private in character.
is still private in character.
On possessory Character of the US Navy: On possessory Character of the US Navy:
-it’s a commodatum
-possession is only transient (temporary); no ownership.
Ramos v. CA Spouses Ramos mortgaged their property to PNB to guarantee payment of a loan. Catalina
(daughter) inherited the property. Catalina sold it to Catambay. Catambay religiously paid his taxes. Catalina’s daughter, Salud, wants to get her land back, saying that in the Deed of Absolute Sale, her mother’s signature was fictitiously obtained. Action was filed 39 yrs later.
(Catambay’s) Tax receipts: strong evidence of possession
Action for reconveyance had already prescribed as it was filed 39 years from registration of the property in respondent’s names
Adverse possession of the subject property had ripened to ownership after the lapse of ten years, good or bad faith under Section 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Coronado v. CA Juana inherited a parcel of land from her grandfather. Monterola included her land in the 2 parcels of land he was selling to Coronado. Coronado says Monterola bequeathed the property to him. Coronado says that Juana already foreclosed whatever right she had w/ the property since Monterola had continuous possession of the property for more than 10 yrs and that it ripened into absolute ownership.
Monterola’s continued possession of the property has not ripened into full ownership.
Monterola NEVER CLAIMED OWNERSHIP over the property. He acknowledged that the boundary owner of the property is Juana. -> During Monterola’s lifetime, Juana was able to enter and reap the benefits/produce of the property. Acts of possessory character performed by one who holds by mere tolerance of the owner are clearly not the concept of possession as enshrined in this Code.
Corpus v. Padilla Corpuz cultivated the land that Domingo abandoned. Mariano Corpuz now claims
ownership by prescription of the lands which were previously abandoned by Pedro Domingo and which he cultivated.
The claim of Corpuz for acquisitive prescription is contradicted by his own evidence
Mariano Corpuz expressly recognizes that the subject lot forms part of the property to which Pedro Domingo has title thereto
One cannot recognize the rights of another and at the same time claim adverse possession which can ripen to ownership, thru acquisitive
Reyes v. CA Florentino Reyes and his sisters entered into a Deed of Extrajudicial partition. F. Reyes says his sisters waived their rights to the properties except one, Paola Reyes (He gave her a tiny portion). Reyes sisters are saying their signatures are forged. F. Reyes executed a Deed of Absolute Sale, selling the land to his children, but moved to nullify the same.
Evidence of forgery (handwriting the same in all signatures..etc.) F.Reyes failed to rebut info. On ownership by prescription: F.Reyes did not meet the requirements of good faith – evidenced by forgery.
No acquisitive prescription since the land is a titled property. Adverse possession can’t be claimed since Reyes sisters resided in the land. Negrete v. CFI of Marinduque Ignacia Negrete sues Maderazo because he
forcibly entered her land and cultivated it. Lower court ruled in favor of Maderazo. Negrete f iled for recovery of the land 10 years after. Maderazo claims she’s barred by prescription. CFI ruled that Maderazo possessed land in good faith for 10 yrs = acquisitive prescription. Negrete says Maderazo couldn’t claim good faith in possessing the lot because the deed of sale covers a parcel of land patently different from the disputed land.
Art. 1134 requires possession “in good faith and with just title for the time fixed by law.
Possessor good faith – one who is not aware of any flaw in his title or mode of acquisition
Not being a possessor in good faith (since he was aware of the flaws in the title), Maderazo can acquire ownership only by extraordinary acquisitive prescription through an uninterrupted adverse possession of 30 years.
Applicable statute in this case is the prescription of action for recovery of a real property which is 30 years without prejudice to what is established for the acquisition of ownership and other real rights by prescription
Magtira v. CA Isidro and Zacarias entered into an agreement: Sale with right to repurchase for 4 years. Isidro died and was succeeded by his daughter, Sofia. She filed an action alleging that the previous agreement was just a mere loan w/ a real mortgage. Court stated accdg. to the wording and intent, it was a sale w/ right to repurchase. Sofia was also guilty w/ laches since she brought the
Sofia was barred from any action to claim due to acquisitive prescription.
Zacarias enjoyed an uninterrupted, adverse, public and peaceful possession of the litigated property for 11 years w/c under Article 1134 of the Civil Code ripened into ownership by ordinary prescription through possession of at least ten
action 11 yrs after. years. Doliendo v. Biarnesa Doliendo bought a parcel of land from Belarmino.
When Belarmino died, parcel of land bought by Doliendo was included in the public auction to w/c Biarnesa was the highest bidder and was awarded the land. He was in possession of the land for more than 10 yrs.
Ordinary prescription. Biarnesa was in possession of the subject property for more than ten (10) years. Therefore, he had acquired a title by prescription under the provisions of the Civil Code. Biarnesa being the highest bidder in the public auction sale was a transaction in good faith and he bought it from someone he believed had the right to sell.
Solis v. CA Antonio Solis allowed Jose Solis to occupy their parcel of land until they (Jose Solis and wife) were financially stable enough to vacate the premises. Jose Solis refused to vacate the area after Antonio asked him to. Jose argues that he owns the land through prescription and donation propter nuptias Defendant’s (Jose) contention: Simeon Solis donated property to Tomas. Tomas Solis donated land to his son, Jose Solis.)
Plaintiff’s (Antonio) contention: No proof of transfer of ownership from Simeon to Tomas.
Jose Solis owned property by prescription. The lapse of more than twenty (20) years of adverse possession by the defendants is sufficient to confer ownership on them of the disputed portion under the Old Civil Code, which requires only ten (10) years of adverse possession.
The “just title” required for acquisitive prescription to set in is: such title where, although there was a mode of transferring ownership, still something is wrong because the grantor is not the owner. (titulo Colorado) Grantor: Tomas Solis (Jose’s father) – not the owner.
The right given by the statute of limitations does not depend upon and has no necessary connection with the validity of the claim under which the possession was held.
Tan v. CA At the time the Central Bank closed the
Continental Bank for alleged bankruptcy, Vicente T. Tan was a stockholder of said Continental
DAMAGES: Since the action was started 12 years after, action is barred by prescription whether under RA 265 or Art 1146.
Bank. He was arrested due to criminal charges against him for irregular transactions at
Continental Bank. Central bank ordered closure of continental. While under detention, Tan executed agreements: stock transfer worth 300k and other properties. Assignees of Tan rehabilitated the bank and it was opened under another name: Interbank. After the lapse of more than 12 yrs, Tan filed for damages and reconveyance. Central bank: action has been barred by the statute of limitations&prescription.
Sec. 29. Proceedings upon insolvency – xxxx At any time within ten days after the Monetary Board has taken charge of the assets of any banking institution, such institution may apply to the court of First Instance for an order requiring the Monetary
Board to show cause why its designated official should not be enjoined from continuing such
charge of its assets…etc.
Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: xxx (2) Upon a quasi-delict. RECONVEYANCE:
1. Art. 1140 – prescription is 4 yrs. (Good faith)
2. Art. 1132 – prescription is 8 yrs.
Tan had at most eight years within which to pursue a reconveyance. He came to court too late. South City Homes v. Republic South City Homes claims possession of a strip of
land adjoining the two parcels of land, which it has bought from its predecessors-in-interest. The Republic of the Philippines argues that the elongated piece of land between the two lots now owned by South City Homes used to be a canal which could not have been appropriated by the purchasers of the adjacent lots or their successors-in-interest
South City Homes’ claim is rejected not because it is a private corporation barred from acquiring public land but because it has failed to establish its title to the disputed lot whatever its nature. (No proof of ownership)
The applicant had been in possession of the property for less than three years. This was far too short of the prescriptive period required for acquisition of immovable property, which is ten years if the possession is in good faith and thirty years if in bad faith, or if the land is public. Dira v. Tanega Dira, Tanega, and Pagulayan entered into a
partnership to engage in the business of printing. Dira failed to pay of his loans after several
demands made by his partners. Tanega gained full ownership of the company and changed its name.
Dira’s action is barred by the statute of limitations. Action was commenced 9 yrs after expiration of
partnership contract (way too late). According to Art. 1132 of the Civil Code, "the
Dira filed an action to recover his salaries, his share in the rental value of the printing equipment, and for the accounting of the partnership affairs. Tanega contends that he has been operating the business since 1947 (8 yrs of possession) without any intervention or participation of Dira, hence his action has already prescribed.
uninterrupted possession for eight years, without need of any other condition."
In good faith or bad faith, after eight years of actual adverse possession, Tanega acquired clear ownership of appellant’s share by acquisitive prescription.
