Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 57092 January 21, 1993
EDGARDO DE JESUS, REMEDIOS DE JESUS, JUANITO DE JESUS, JUIANA DE JESUS,
JOSE DE JESUS, !ORDEI"A DE JESUS, RE#NADO DE JESUS, ERNESTO DE JESUS,
PRISCIO DE JESUS, CORA"ON DE JESUS, petitioners,
vs.
COURT O! APPEAS an$ PRIMITI%A !EIPE DE JESUS, respondents.
Jose B. Soriano for petitioners.
Jose A. Aguiling and Paquito C. Ochoa for private respondent.

MEO, J.:
This has reference to a petition for revie on certiorari see!in" the reversal of the decision of the
#ourt of $ppeals in #$%&.R. No. '()*+ ,Dece-ber ./, *(01, Sison, P.V., #en2on. $suncion 3P4, 556
hich reversed the decision dated Septe-ber 7, *(7' of the then #ourt of 8irst Instance of 9ulacan.
In conse:uence, the appellate court dis-issed herein petitioners; co-plaint and declared private
respondent Pri-itive 8elipe de 5esus to be the absolute oner entitled to the possession of the land
in :uestion to the e<clusion of petitioners.
The propert= in dispute is a parcel of residential land situated in Da-pol .nd, Pulilan, 9ulacan,
bounded on the North b= a Vereda> on the South, b= the Provincial Road? on the @ast, b= #atalino
Ta=a" ,Ta=ao6? on the Aest, b= Macario de Beon, containin" an area of .')' s:uare -eters ,9rief
for the Petitioners, p. +6, and covered b= Ta< Declaration No. .+0+ of the Office of the Provincial
$ssessor of 9ulacan, in the na-e of Victoriano 8elipe ,@<h. C'%#C6.
Respondent appellate court found the above%described parcel of land to be the sa-e parcel of land
hich as D
. . . the subEect of the Fasulatan"%9ilin"%Mabibilin"%Muli ,@<h. *6 e<ecuted on
Nove-ber .', *(+., b= @-ilia #a-acho ,survivin" ido of #atalino @s"uerra6,
5ose #. @s"uerra and Socorro @s"uerra, conve=in" or sellin" this land to the
spouses, Victoriano 8elipe and &uiller-a de la #ru2, ith ri"ht to repurchase the
sa-e ithin a period of five =ears, but that the vendors%a%retro failed to repurchase
the land. The vendors%a%retro ere the heirs of the deceased #atalino @s"uerra.
Since the date of the sale the spouses Victoriano 8elipe and &uiller-a de la #ru2,
possessed and lived on this land. The appellant 3herein private respondent4 as
livin" ith her parents on the land, and upon their deaths, she continued to live on
and possess the sa-e. ,pp. ++%+/, Rollo.6
On Nove-ber .(, *()* private respondent e<ecuted a sorn state-ent declarin" herself the onl=
heir of the deceased Victoriano 8elipe and adEudicatin" to herself the onership of the land in
:uestion ,@<h. C/C6.
More than telve =ears later or on $pril .7, *(7+, petitioners herein filed in the #ourt of 8irst
Instance of 9ulacan, an action for recover= of onership and possession and :uietin" of title to the
above-entioned piece of land covered b= Ta< Declaration No. .+0+, alle"in" a-on" others> Cthat
their "randfather, Santia"o de 5esus durin" his lifeti-e oned the residential lot? that Santia"o de
5esus died before the outbrea! of Aorld Aar II, leavin" three ,+6 sons, na-el=> Mariano, @<e:uiel,
and 5ose, all surna-ed de 5esus? that Mariano de 5esus died on Septe-ber +, *(') leavin" ei"ht
,06 survivin" children, na-el=> @d"ardo, Re-edios, 5uanita, 5uliano, 5ose, 8lordeli2a, Re=naldo, and
@rnesto, all surna-ed de 5esus and all of the- plaintiffs? that @<e:uiel de 5esus died on $pril +,
*(/0, survived b= to ,.6 children D Priscilo and #ora2on, both surna-ed de 5esus, also plaintiffs
in this case? hile 5ose de 5esus died before the outbrea! of Aorld Aar II ithout an= issue . . . C,p.
+', Record on $ppeal6.
The trial court found for the plaintiffs, petitioners herein. The dispositive portion of the decision dated
Septe-ber 7, *(7' reads>
8OR $BB O8 TH@ 8OR@&OIN&, Eud"-ent is hereb= rendered>
,*6 Declarin" the plaintiffs as havin" the better ri"ht to onership and possession of
the residential lot in :uestion b= virtue of hereditar= succession?
,.6 Orderin" the defendant to surrender the onership and possession of the said
propert= to the herein plaintiffs?
,+6 Orderin" the defendant to pa= to the plaintiffs the su- of P'11.11 for and as
attorne=;s fees, and the costs of suit.
SO ORD@R@D. ,pp. ')%'7, Record, on $ppeal.6
$s earlier inti-ated, on appeal, the #ourt of $ppeals set aside the Eud"-ent of the trial court in a
decision pro-ul"ated on Dece-ber ./, *(01
,pp. +.%+0, Rollo6, the dispositive portion of hich reads>
IN VI@A O8 TH@ 8OR@&OIN& #ONSID@R$TION, findin" serious errors to have
been co--itted b= the trial court in its Eud"-ent, the sa-e is hereb= set aside and
another one entered, dis-issin" the co-plaint, and declarin" the appellant to be the
absolute oner, and entitled to the possession of this land in :uestion, to the
e<clusion of plaintiffs%appellees. ,p. +0, Rollo.6
Thus, the instant petition for revie on certiorari hich as filed ith this #ourt on $u"ust *+, *(0*
,p. (, Rollo6 ith the folloin" assi"ned errors>
I
TH@ #OGRT O8 $PP@$BS @RR@D IN S@TTIN& $SID@ TH@ 5GD&M@NT O8 TH@
TRI$B #OGRT AHI#H $A$RD@D TH@ R@SID@NTI$B BOT IN HG@STION TO TH@
P@TITION@RS 9I VIRTG@ O8 H@R@DIT$RI SG##@SSION $ND ORD@R@D TH@
PRIV$T@ R@SPOND@NT TO SGRR@ND@R TH@ OAN@RSHIP $ND POSS@SSION
O8 TH@ S$M@ TO TH@M.
II
TH@ #OGRT O8 $PP@$BS @RR@D IN RGBIN& TH$T TH@ B$ND D@S#RI9@D IN
TH@ P@TITION@RS; #OMPB$INT IS TH@ S$M@ B$ND AHI#H IS TH@ SG95@#T
O8 TH@ S$B@ AITH RI&HT TO R@PGR#H$S@ ,@<h. *6 @J@#GT@D ON
NOV@M9@R ', *(+. 9I TH@ @S&G@RR$S IN 8$VOR O8 TH@ P$R@NTS O8 TH@
PRIV$T@ R@SPOND@NT.
III
TH@ #OGRT O8 $PP@$BS @RR@D IN D@#B$RIN& TH@ PRIV$T@ R@SPOND@NT
TO 9@ TH@ $9SOBGT@ OAN@R $ND @NTITB@D TO TH@ POSS@SSION O8 TH@
B$ND IN HG@STION TO TH@ @J#BGSION O8 TH@ P@TITION@RS.
IV
TH@ #OGRT O8 $PP@$BS @RR@D IN HOBDIN& TH$T THIS B$ND A$S
PGR#H$S@D 9I TH@ P$R@NTS O8 TH@ PRIV$T@ R@SPOND@NT 8ROM TH@
H@IRS O8 TH@ B$T@ #$T$BINO @S&G@RR$ ON NOV@M9@R ', *(+. $ND TH@
PRIV$T@ R@SPOND@NT $ND H@R P$R@NTS H$D 9@@N IN OP@N,
#ONTINGOGS, $DV@RS@, PG9BI# $ND NOTORIOGS POSS@SSION O8 TH@
S$M@ SIN#@ *(+. GP TO TH@ PR@S@NT, IN TH@ #ON#@PT O8 OAN@R.
In effect, the sole issue in this petition boils don to this :uestion> Aho has the ri"ht to the
onership and possession of the residential lot subEect -atter of the case, petitioners b= virtue of
hereditar= succession, or private respondent ho clai-s onership throu"h purchase of the propert=
b= her parentsK
$ccordin" to the trial court, petitioners have the better ri"ht but accordin" to the appellate court, the
propert= ri"htl= belon"s to private respondent. In vie of the fact that the findin"s of the trial court
and the appellate court are contrar= to each other, this #ourt shall e<ercise its authorit= of reviein"
the evidence in order to arrive at the correct facts based on the record ,Director of Bands vs. #ourt of
$ppeals, **7 S#R$ +/) 3*(0.4? Hualit= Tobacco #orporation vs. Inter-ediate $ppellate #ourt, *07
S#R$ .*1 3*((14? Valen2uela vs. #ourt of $ppeals, *(* S#R$ * 3*((14? Shauf vs. #ourt of $ppeals,
*(* S#R$ 7*+ 3*((14 ? 9usta-ante vs. #ourt of $ppeals, *(/ S#R$ )/' 3*((*6.
It is not disputed that petitioners are the heirs of their late "randfather, Santia"o de 5esus? hat is in
dispute is their clai- that the residential lot in :uestion belon"ed to their "randfather and therefore
theirs b= hereditar= succession ,9rief for the Respondent, pp. 0%(6. Neither is it contradicted that
Santia"o de 5esus as -arried to Maria Re=es, a ido ith three children b= a prior -arria"e,
na-el=> 9asilio, Violeta, and &uiller-a, the last havin" been the -other of herein private respondent
,tsn, $u"ust *', *(7/, pp. */%*'? Septe-ber *), *(7/, pp. */%*', +(%/*6.
The onl= docu-entar= evidence of Santia"o de 5esus; alle"ed onership of the residential lot in
:uestion is Ta< Declaration No. .+0/ ,@<h. C$C6 in the na-e of Victoriano 8elipe. Therein, 8elipe
clai-ed onership for ta< purposes of a house of -i<ed -aterials and a nipa roof, valued at
P*(1.11 and constructed on the lot or CsolarC belon"in" to Santia"o de 5esus. The state-ent therein
re"ardin" Santia"o de 5esus; onership of the lot is supported b= the testi-on= of petitioners
@d"ardo de 5esus and #ora2on de 5esus%Masi"lat, and three other itnesses. The= asserted
personal !noled"e of said fact hich, the= sore, as also co--on !noled"e in Da-pol .nd,
Pulilan, 9ulacan ,tsn, $u"ust *', *(7/, p. *)? Septe-ber *), *(7/, pp. *0, +(6. $s a child, for
instance, itness $ntonio Ro<as as fre:uentl= in the house of his aunt, Maria Re=es, a sister of his
-other. Ahen his aunt as still alive, she told hi- and his -other, in the presence of Victoriano
8elipe, that she had no ri"ht at all over the propert=, includin" the old house, as it reall= belon"ed to
Santia"o de 5esus ,tsn, Septe-ber *), *(7/, pp. +(, /)%/(6.
On the other hand, private respondent presented a contract of sale ith ri"ht of repurchase,
CFasulatan"%9ilin"%Mabibilin"%MuliC ,@<h. C*C6, entered into in *(+. beteen her parents, Victoriano
8elipe and &uiller-a de la #ru2, and the vendors%a%retro @-ilia #a-acho, Socorro @s"uerra, and
5ose @s"uerra? a CSinu-paan" Sala=sa=C? or an affidavit of adEudication hich private respondent
e<ecuted in *()* ,@<h. C/C6? and ta< declarations and official receipts.
On the evidentiar= value of these docu-ents, it should be recalled that the notari2ation of a private
docu-ent converts it into a public one and renders it ad-issible in court ithout further proof of its
authenticit= ,5oson vs. 9alta2ar, *(/ S#R$ **/ 3*((*46. This is so because a public docu-ent dul=
e<ecuted and entered in the proper re"istr= is presu-ed to be Valid and "enuine until the contrar= is
shon b= clear and convincin" proof ,$sido vs. &u2-an, +7 Phil. )'. 3*(*04? G.S. vs. @nri:ue2, *
Phil. ./* 3*(1.4? 8avor vs. #ourt of $ppeals, *(/ S#R$ +10 3*((*46. $s such, the part= challen"in"
the recital of the docu-ent -ust prove his clai- ith clear and convincin" evidence ,Dia2 vs. #ourt
of $ppeals, */' S#R$ +/) 3*(0)46.
There is no doubt that the pacto de retro deed of sale has assu-ed the character of a public
docu-ent, havin" been notari2ed b= then 5ustice of the Peace 8rancisco Ma!apu"a=, 5r. in his
capacit= as Notar= Public @<%Oficio. Hence, it is presu-ed valid and authentic until proven
otherise. Petitioners, hoever, challen"e this presu-ption of validit= and authenticit=. The= contend
that private respondent;s non%production of Ta< Declaration No. '1(), specificall= -entioned in @<h.
C*C as containin" the description of the piece of land subEect of the CFasulatan"%9ilin"%Mabibilin"%
MuliC shattered such presu-ption and rendered suspect the latter docu-ent ,9rief for the
Petitioners, pp. (, *(%..6.
Ahile both Socorro Olarte, a si"nator= to the CFasulatan"%9ilin"%Mabibilin"%MuliC as one of the
vendors%a%retro, and private respondent testified that the land subEect of the sale as covered b= Ta<
Declaration No. '1() in the na-e of the ori"inal oner #atalino @s"uerra ,tsn, October .*, *(7/, p.
) and Dece-ber *0, *(7/, pp. +%'6, the= could not produce a cop= of said ta< declaration.
#apitali2in" on said o-ission, petitioners presented a certified true cop= of said Ta< Declaration No.
'1() ,@<h. C&C6 coverin" the =ear *(/0 and hich, hoever, concerns a piece of lot oned b= a
certain Teodoro Sinson. 8urther, petitioners also produced certified true copies of Ta< Declarations
Nos. ..*/ ,@<h. CHC6, ..*' ,@<h CIC6 and ..*) ,@<h. C5C6, all in the na-e of #atalino @s"uerra as
oner, and all for the =ear *()7.
Pablo H. Do-in"o, Senior Deput= $ssessor, ho as subpoenaed to present in court Ta<
Declaration No. '1() in the na-e of #atalino @s"uerra identified the above%-entioned certified true
copies of ta< declarations as havin" been issued b= the Office of the Provincial $ssessor of 9ulacan
,tsn, March *., *(7', pp. *+%*/6. Hoever, he said he could not brin" ith hi- a cop= of Ta<
Declaration No. '1() in the na-e of #atalino @s"uerra as the records of the Office of the Provincial
$ssessor onl= started ith the =ear *(/0 because the old $ssessor;s Office as burned don durin"
the earl= part of the liberation ,Transcript, March *., *(7', pp. '%), *.6.
It is si"nificant to note that the land covered b= Ta< Declaration No. '1() ,@<h. C&C6 described
therein as ba-boo land, as previousl= covered b= Ta< Declaration No. .++ for the sa-e oner,
hile Ta< Declaration No. .+0+ ,@<h. C'%#C6 be"innin" ith the =ear *(/0 and coverin" the
residential lot in :uestion declared in the na-e of Victoriano 8elipe, cancelled Ta< Declaration No.
'+.) ,@<h. C'%#%*C6. $n uncertified cop= of said Ta< Declaration No. '+.) for Victoriano 8elipe
purportin" to co--ence ith the =ear *(+( alle"edl= superseded Ta< Declaration No. .'. in the
na-e of #atalino @s"uerra
,@<h. C+C6.
In other ords, the piece of residential lot covered b= Ta< Declaration No. .+0+ ,@<h. C'C6, or b= Ta<
Declaration No. .'. ,@<h. C+C6 at around the ti-e of the alle"ed sale, until superseded b= Ta<
Declaration No. '+.) ,@<h. C'%#%*C6 be"innin" ith the =ear *(+(, is not the piece of land covered
b= Ta< Declaration No. '1() specificall= referred to in @<h. C*C as the subEect of the CFasulatan"%
9ilin"%Mabibilin"%MuliC. Thus, the fact that &uiller-a de la #ru2, -other of private respondent, -ade
real propert= ta< pa=-ents purportedl= on Ta< Declaration No. '1() for the =ears *(+' ,@<h. C.%dC
and C.%eC6 and *(+) ,@<h. C.%bC6 and probabl= for the =ears *(++, *(+/, *(+7 and *(+0, in the na-e
of #atalino @s"uerra neither alters the fact that the piece of land covered b= Ta< Declaration No.
.+0+ ,@<h. C'C6 is not the subEect of the CFasulatan"%9ilin"%Mabibilin"%MuliC ,@<h. C*C6 nor
de-onstrates that the pa=-ents ere -ade for the residential lot under liti"ation.
It is, therefore, evident that Ta< Declaration No. '1() as ine<istent at the ti-e of the alle"ed sale.
9= a si-pl= anal=sis of the different ta< declarations presented as evidence in this case, it is li!eise
clear that hen b= virtue of the alle"ed sale, a ne ta< declaration nu-bered '+.), as -ade in
*(+0 in the na-e of Victoriano 8elipe ,@<h. C'%#%*C6, hat as cancelled as Ta< Declaration No.
.'. ,@<h. C+C6, not Ta< Declaration No. '1() hich supposedl= covered the propert= subEect of the
CFasulatan"%9ilin"%Mabibilin"%MuliC. It should be noted that the propert= under Ta< Declaration No.
'+.) bears an identical description to the propert= under liti"ation. Thus, the inevitable conclusion is
that, ithout an= le"al basis, Victoriano 8elipe had declared hi-self the oner of the disputed
propert= for ta< purposes. Ta< Declaration No. '+.) thereafter beca-e the basis for Ta< Declaration
No. .+0+ in *(/0 ,@<h. C'%#C6 until it as cancelled and ne ta< declarations ere -ade in the
na-e of private respondent, vi2., Ta< Declaration No. (/'+ in *(). ,@<h. C'%bC6, then Ta<
Declaration No. .)'7 in *()7 ,@<h. C'C6 and finall= Ta< Declaration No. .(). in *(7/ ,@<h. C'%$C6.
$s earlier stated, &uiller-a de la #ru2 had also been pa=in" real propert= ta< on the house
described as located in Da-pol .nd in the na-e of Victoriano 8elipe under Ta< Declaration No.
*/(0/ since *(++ ,@<h. C.%#C6, and then under Ta< Declaration No. +(7' since *(/* ,@<h. C.%/C6
until *(/7, and under Ta< Declaration No. .+0/ in *(/0. 9= a tist of fate, hoever, Ta< Declaration
No. .+0/ describes the house, a-on" others, as located in the residential lot belon"in" to Santia"o
de 5esus or Csolar de Santia"o de 5esusC ,@<h. C$%*C6. Ahile real propert= ta< continued to be paid
under the latter declaration until *('0 ,@<h. C.%=C6, b= statin" in said ta< declaration that his house
as located in the land of Santia"o de 5esus. Victoriano 8elipe reco"ni2ed and ad-itted the
onership of Santia"o de 5esus over the residential lot involved herein. Such ad-ission puts to
nau"ht the clai- of private respondent for hen one derives title to propert= fro- another, the act,
declaration or o-ission of the latter in relation to the propert= is evidence a"ainst the for-er ,Rolle2a
vs. #ourt of $ppeals, *7/ S#R$ +'/ ,*(0(46.
The authenticit= of the si"nature of Victoriano 8elipe in the deed of sale ith ri"ht to repurchase is
also in :uestion. 9oth Moises de 5esus and $ntonio Ro<as testified that Victoriano 8elipe could not
even vote as he did not !no ho to read and rite ,tsn, Septe-ber *), *(7/, pp. +1, /.6. $lthou"h
Socorro @s"uerra Olarte identified the si"nature of Victoriano 8elipe on the CFasulatan"%9ilin"%
Mabibilin"%MuliC as his ,tsn, October .*, *(7/, p. *+6, she also testified that Victoriano 8elipe has a
brother ho loo!ed e<actl= li!e Victoriano ,tsn, October .*, *(7/, p. +)6. On the issue, all that
private respondent could sa= as that her father studied the cartilla ,tsn, 5anuar= ./, *(7', p. 06.
Gnder the circu-stances, there is stron", convincin", and conclusive proof of the nullit= and falsit= of
@<hibit C*C. Its evidentiar= nature cannot, therefore, be sustained ,Be"aspi vs. #ourt of $ppeals, */.
S#R$ 0. 3*(0)46. @ven if the docu-ent ere to be considered si-pl= as a private docu-ent, it
ould still need evidence of its due e<ecution and authenticit= even if it is alread= -ore than +1
=ears old as it cannot be considered unble-ished b= an= circu-stance of suspicion ,Heirs of
De-etria Bacsa vs. #ourt of $ppeals, *(7 S#R$ .+/ 3*((*46.
#onse:uentl=, the affidavit of adEudication e<ecuted b= private respondent on Ma= .*, *()* ,@<h.
C/C6, has no evidentiar= value as it has beco-e baseless. 8urther-ore, private respondent falsel=
stated therein that she is the onl= heir of Victoriano 8elipe for, at the ti-e of its e<ecution, her
-other, &uiller-a de la #ru2, as still livin". &uiller-a de la #ru2 died on $pril .+, *()/ ,@<h. C9C6,
three =ears after the CSinu-paan" Sala=sa=C ,@<h. C/C6 as e<ecuted. Moreover, the ta< receipts
and declarations of onership for ta< purposes upon hich private respondent basicall= anchors her
clai-, are not incontrovertible evidence of onership? the= onl= beco-e evidence of onership
ac:uired b= prescription hen acco-panied b= proof of actual possession of the propert= ,Tabuena
vs. #ourt of $ppeals, *() S#R$ )'1 3*((*4? RoEas vs. #ourt of $ppeals, *(. S#R$ 71( 3*((.46.
On the issue of onership b= ac:uisitive prescription, private respondent contends> C&rantin" that it
as for-erl= oned b= their late "randfather, the= ,petitioners6 have lost hatever ri"ht the= -a=
have over the land b= e<tinctive prescriptionC for the reason that she, private respondent has
ac:uired the sa-e b= ac:uisitive prescription ,9rief for the Respondents, p. (6, citin" Section /* of
the old #ode of #ivil Procedure hich states>
Sec. /*. Title to Band b= Prescription. D Ten =ears of actual adverse possession b=
an= person clai-in" to be the oner for that ti-e of an= land or interest in land,
uninterruptedl=, continuousl= for ten =ears b= occupanc=, descent, "rants, or
otherise, in hatever a= such occupanc= -a= have co--enced or continued,
shall vest in ever= actual possessor of such land, a full and co-plete title . . . .
#ora2on de 5esus Masi"lat testified that fro- *(+1 to *('., the period of ti-e she as livin" in the
house her "randfather erected on the contested propert=, her "rand-other, Victoriano 8elipe,
&uiller-a de la #ru2, and private respondent also lived there ,tsn, 5ul= *), *(7/, p. .+6. She as
corroborated b= petitioner @d"ardo de 5esus ho also testified that in *(+. up to the ti-e of his
death in *(/0, @<e:uiel de 5esus as ta!in" char"e of the propert= and that hile the parents of
private respondent ere the ones pa=in" the real propert= ta<es the -one= therefor ca-e fro-
@<e:uiel ,tsn, 5ul= *), *(7/, pp. **%*/6. Aitness Salvador @s"uerra testified that Victoriano 8elipe
be"an to reside in the house hen he -arried &uiller-a de la #ru2 and that #ora2on and her father,
@<e:uiel, also resided there after the death of Santia"o de 5esus ,tsn, $u"ust *', *(7/, pp. */, .*,
..6. Moises de 5esus, for his part, testified that hile Victoriano 8elipe started sta=in" in the propert=
onl= hen the children of Santia"o de 5esus had died, #ora2on de 5esus continued to reside there
,tsn, Septe-ber *), *(7/, p. .76.
In her on defense private respondent first testified that #ora2on de 5esus never lived ith the-
and that @<e:uiel de 5esus never ent to their place ,tsn., October **, *(7/, pp. +'%+)6. She did not
contradict, hoever, the testi-on= of @d"ardo de 5esus on rebuttal that he hi-self at the a"e of *.
used to sta= in the house and as itness to the occasion hen #ora2on fell in a ditch "oin"
toards their place, that as a result of such accident, #ora2on sustained a per-anent defor-it= on
one hand? and that #ora2on left the place onl= in *('. hen she "ot -arried ,tsn, $pril .+, *(7', pp.
.+%./6. Neither did private respondent or her itnesses traverse the testi-on= of #ora2on de
5esus%Masi"lat, also on rebuttal, that since childhood she had been residin" in the house oned b=
her "randfather Santia"o de 5esus, to"ether ith private respondent and the latter;s parents, and
actuall= left the place onl= in *('.> that her parents as ell as her child died in that house? and that
private respondent as, in fact, the one ho caused the re"istration of her child;s death ,tsn, $pril
.+, *(7', p. .'6. @ven Socorro @s"uerra Olarte, itness for private respondent, testified that she
re-e-bers @<e:uiel de 5esus as he as ala=s around henever she visited the place and he as
the one ho "ot santol fruits for her so-eti-es ,tsn, Septe-ber .+, *(7/, p. *76.
It thus appears that Victoriano 8elipe as residin" in the house of Santia"o de 5esus si-pl=
because he as -arried to &uiller-a de la #ru2, dau"hter of Maria Re=es b= a first -arria"e, ho,
obviousl=, as livin" ith her -other ho had ta!en Santia"o de 5esus for her second husband. In
effect, their possession of the contested lot as neither e<clusive nor in the concept of oner.
Possession, to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive ri"ht, -ust be possession under a clai- of
title or it -ust be adverse or in the concept of oner or concepto de dueo,OrdoLe2 vs. #ourt of
$ppeals, *00 S#R$ *1( 3*((14? #oronado vs. #ourt of $ppeals, *(* S#R$ 0*/ 3*((14? Manila
@lectric #o-pan= vs. Inter-ediate $ppelate #ourt, *7/ S#R$ +*+ 3*(0(46.
In this case, Victoriano 8elipe and his fa-il= ere residin" in the land b= -ere tolerance. There is no
a= of !noin" ho the house on the lot as described in Ta< Declaration Nos. */(0/ and +(7',
but, to repeat, in Ta< Declaration No. .+0/ hich co--enced ith the =ear *(/0 ,@<h. C$C6, the
house as described as constructed on the lot or solar of Santia"o de 5esus up to the =ear *()*
hen private respondent as still pa=in" propert= ta< ,@<h.
C.%<C6.
Si"nificantl=, the CFasulatan"%9ilin"%Mabibilin"%MuliC as not even "iven to private respondent b= her
parents? she ad-itted havin" found it in the house althou"h the= -entioned its e<istence to her
hen the= ere still alive ,tsn, Dece-ber *0, *(7/, pp. *0%*(6. Gnder the circu-stances, the
prescriptive period cannot be considered to have accrued durin" the lifeti-e of Victoriano 8elipe.
It is interestin" to note that hen private respondent e<ecuted her CSinu-paan" Sala=sa=C ,@<h. C/C6
adEudicatin" the disputed lot to herself on the basis of the contract of sale as no repurchase had
been -ade b= the vendors of retro, @<e:uiel de 5esus as alread= dead and #ora2on de 5esus%
Masi"lat as no lon"er residin" in the propert= in :uestion. $s she as in possession of the
propert=, private respondent then had it declared in her na-e for real propert= ta< purposes under
Ta< Declaration No. (/'+ ,@<h. C'%bC6 thereb= cancellin" Ta< Declaration No. .+0+ ,@<h. C'%b%*C6
hich as in the na-e of Victoriano 8elipe.
$s to Ta< Declaration No. .+0/, the last vesti"e of Santia"o de 5esus; onership of the propert= in
:uestion, there is no evidence on record as to hether private respondent had it cancelled, had a
ne declaration -ade on the propert= in her na-e, or hether she continued pa=in" ta< after her
pa=-ent for the =ear *()*. It as established, hoever, throu"h the testi-on= of Salvador
@s"uerra, that the old house as de-olished and a ne bun"alo as constructed on the lot ,tsn,
$u"ust *', *(7/, pp. .+%./6.
To create a funda-ental basis for her clai- of onership b= ac:uisitive prescription, private
respondent -ort"a"ed the :uestioned propert= to the Rural 9an! of Pulilan ,@<h. C'%bC6 not as a
-ere possessor but as an oner thereof. She also re"istered both the -ort"a"e and the
CSinu-paan" Sala=sa=C ,tsn, Dece-ber *0, *(7/, p. .+6. Hoever, she never atte-pted to obtain a
certificate of title over the propert=. This o-ission indicates, to sa= the least, that private respondent
reali2es her lac! of an= laful clai- of onership over the propert= for hile re"istration is not a
-ode of ac:uirin" onership, it is evidence of such title over the particular propert= ,$vila v. Tapucar,
.1* S#R$ */0 3*((*46.
Private respondent;s pretensions to ac:uisitive prescription -a= not succeed even under $ct No.
*(1, the #ode of #ivil Procedure. Gnder Section /* thereof, "ood faith and Eust title are not re:uired
for purposes of ac:uisitive prescription? adverse possession in either character ripens into onership
after the lapse of ten =ears ,#ru2 vs. #ourt of $ppeals, (+ S#R$ )*( 3*(7(4? Huilisado vs, #ourt of
$ppeals, *0. S#R$ /1* 3*((14? On"siaco vs. Dallo, .7 S#R$ *)* 3*()(4? Miraflor vs. #ourt of
$ppeals, */. S#R$ *0 3*(0)46. The Eust title re:uired for ac:uisitive prescription to set in is not Ctitulo
verdadero = validoC D such title hich b= itself is sufficient to transfer onership ithout the
necessit= of lettin" the prescriptive period elapse, but onl= Ctitulo
coloradoC D or such title here, althou"h there as a -ode of transferrin" onership, still
so-ethin" is ron" because the "rantor is not the oner ,Doliendo vs. 9iannesa, 7 Phil. .+. 3*(1)4
cited in Solis vs. #ourt of $ppeals, *7) S#R$ )70 3*(0(46, and incidentall=, it -a= perhaps be
-entioned that prescription runnin" even after the effectivit= of the Ne #ivil #ode on $u"ust +1,
*('1, continued to be "overned b= Section /* of the Old #ivil #ode ,Solis vs. #ourt of
$ppeals, supra6.
Gnder the present #ivil #ode, the prescriptive period re:uired for ac:uisition of i--ovable propert=
is ten =ears if the possession is in "ood faith, and thirt= =ears if in bad faith ,South #it= Ho-es, Inc.
vs. Republic, *0' S#R$ )(+ 3*((146. Such open, continuous, e<clusive and notorious occupation of
the disputed propert= for thirt= =ears -ust be conclusivel= established ,San Mi"uel #orporation vs.
#ourt of $ppeals, *0' S#R$ 7.. 3*((146.
Rec!oned fro- the ti-e she e<ecuted the affidavit of adEudication in *()*, eleven =ears after the
Ne #ivil #ode had ta!en effect, private respondent;s possession of the contested lot is far too short
of the prescriptive period of thirt= =ears considerin" that her possession is in bad faith. The filin" of
the petition for recover= of onership and possession and :uietin" of title b= petitioners on $pril .7,
*(7+ as ell belo the ac:uisitive prescriptive period for private respondent, hich is thirt= =ears
under $rticle **/* of the present #ivil #ode. In this case, the statutor= period of prescription is
dee-ed to have co--enced hen petitioners ere -ade aare of a clai- adverse to the-
,#oronel vs. Inter-ediate $ppellate #ourt, *'' S#R$ .71 3*(0746, that is, hen the affidavit of
adEudication as dul= re"istered ith the Re"istr= of Deeds hich, at the earliest -a= be considered
to be in *(7/, hen private respondent as able to secure a ta< declaration in her na-e.
AH@R@8OR@, the decision of the #ourt of $ppeals under revie is hereb= S@T $SID@ and the
decision of the trial court, dated Septe-ber 7, *(7', R@INST$T@D.
SO ORD@R@D.
Gutierrez Jr. Bidin !avide Jr. and Ro"ero JJ. concur.