Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province vs.

Court of
Appeals, Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano and Juan Valdez
acts!
The whole controversy started when the herein petitioner fled an application
for registration of lands 1, 2, 3 and 4 in La Trinidad, Benguet on Septemer !,
1"#2$ The heirs of %uan &alde' and the heirs of (gmidio )ctaviano fled an
opposition on lots 2 and 3, respectively$ )n *ovemer 1+, 1"#!, the land
registration court confrmed the registrale title of the petitioner$ )n ,ay ",
1"++, the -ourt of .ppeals reversed the decision and dismissed the &icar/s
application$ The heirs fled a motion for reconsideration, praying that the lots
e ordered registered under their names$ The -ourt of .ppeals denied the
motion for lac0 of su1cient merit$ Both parties then came efore the
Supreme -ourt$ The Supreme -ourt, in a minute resolution, denied oth
petitions$ The heirs fled the instant cases for the recovery and possession of
the lots$
2espondents argue that the petitioner is arred from setting up the defense
of ownership or long and continuous possession y the prior 3udgment of the
-ourt of .ppeals under the principle of res 3udicata$ 4etitioner contends that
the principle is not applicale ecause the dispositive portion of the
3udgment merely dismissed the application for registration$
The two cases a1rmed y the Supreme -ourt, touched on the ownership of lots 2
and 3 in 5uestion6 that the two lots were possessed y the predecessors7in7interest
of private respondents under claim of ownership in good faith from 1"8# to 1"!16
that petitioner had een in possession of the same lots as ailee in commodatum
up to 1"!1, when petitioner repudiated the trust and when it applied for registration
in 1"#26 that petitioner had 3ust een in possession as owner for eleven years,
hence there is no possiility of ac5uisitive prescription which re5uires 18 years
possession with 3ust title and 38 years of possession without6 that the principle of
res judicata on these fndings y the -ourt of .ppeals will ar a reopening of these
5uestions of facts6 and that those facts may no longer e altered$
"ssue! #o$ the failure of &icar to return the su3ect property to respondents
constitute adverse possession which would entitle &icar to have 3ust title in order for
ordinary ac5uisitive prescription to set in$
4rivate respondents were ale to prove that their predecessors9 house was
orrowed y petitioner &icar after the church and the convent were destroyed$ They
never as0ed for the return of the house, ut when they allowed its free use, they
ecame ailors in commodatum and the petitioner the ailee$ The ailees9 failure to
return the su3ect matter of commodatum to the ailor did not mean adverse
possession on the part of the orrower$ The ailee held in trust the property su3ect
matter of commodatum$ The adverse claim of petitioner came only in 1"!1 when it
declared the lots for ta:ation purposes$ The action of petitioner &icar y such
adverse claim could not ripen into title y way of ordinary ac5uisitive prescription
ecause of the asence of 3ust title$