Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Present:
Pe
titioners,
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and
BERSAMIN, JJ.
- versus -
Promulgated:
ISABELO SACABIN,
Responden
t.
x------------------------------------------------- x
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
1)
3)
SO ORDERED.[6]
The Issue
The primary issue in this case is whether the complaint for
amendment of OCT No. P-8599, which seeks the reconveyance of
the disputed property, has already prescribed.
The Ruling of the Court
The DENR and the trial courts finding that respondent and
his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of Lot No.
452, including the disputed 790 sq.m. portion, in an open,
continuous, peaceful, and adverse manner since 1940 is
uncontroverted. To defeat the claim of respondent, petitioners
relied primarily on their certificate of title which includes
the disputed 790 sq.m. portion.
The Special Investigator from the DENR who conducted the
second investigation in 1996 testified that the disputed 790 sq.m.
portion is part of respondents property. The Geodetic Engineer
who assisted the investigation and conducted a survey of the
adjoining properties of the parties also found that the disputed
790 sq.m. portion rightfully belongs to respondent. Respondent
offered as evidence the sketch plan[7] of the adjoining properties
prepared by the Geodetic Engineer, which clearly shows that the
disputed 790 sq.m. portion is within the property of respondent.
Taking into consideration the seven fifty-year old coconut trees
planted in a straight line which form a common natural boundary
between the lots of the parties, the sketch plan clearly shows that
the disputed 790 sq.m. portion is within the side of respondents
property, and is part of Lot No. 452. Another DENR employee who
assisted in the ocular inspection of the properties testified that
the petitioners and respondent admitted the existence of the
common boundary between their lots.[8]
Prescriptive Period Not Applicable
Petitioners contend that respondents action is barred by
prescription. Petitioners maintain that their OCT No. P-8599, which
was issued in 1968 and registered in the Register of Deeds in
1974, is already indefeasible. They allege that when respondent
filed his protest on 26 December 1991, or 17 years after the
registration of OCT No. P-8599, it was already too late to question
the validity of petitioners certificate of title.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
CHIEF JUSTICE
CHAIRPERSON
RENATO
CASTRO
C.
ASSOCIATE
JUSTICE
CORONA
TERESITA
JUSTICE
J.
LEONARDO-DE
ASSOCIATE
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13, ARTICLE VIII OF THE
CONSTITUTION, I CERTIFY THAT THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE ABOVE
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Rosmari
D. Carandang, concurring.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
Id. at 79-80.
[7]
Records, p. 70.
[8]
[9]
Rollo, p. 54. See Decision dated 10 October 1996 of the Regional Executive Director of the
DENR, Region X, p. 2.
[10]
Heirs of Valeriano S. Concha, Sr. v. Lumocso, G.R. No. 158121, 12 December 2007, 540 SCRA 1; Santos v.
Lumbao, G.R. No. 169129, 28 March 2007, 519 SCRA 408.
[11]
[12]
Llenares v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98709, 13 May 1993, 222 SCRA 10.
Rementizo v. Heirs of Pelagia Vda. De Madarieta, G.R. No. 170318, 15 January 2009.
[13]
Santos v. Heirs of Dominga Lustre, G.R. No. 151016, 6 August 2008, 561 SCRA 120; Heirs of Marcela Salonga
Bituin v. Caoleng, Sr., G.R. No. 157567, 10 August 2007, 529 SCRA 747; Heirs of Salvador Hermosilla v.
Remoquillo, G.R. No. 167320, 30 January 2007, 513 SCRA 403; Coronel v. Intermediate Appellate Court,
239 Phil. 264 (1987).
[14]
[15]
Id. at 690-691.
[16]
Mendizabel v. Apao, G.R. No. 143185, 20 February 2006, 482 SCRA 587, citing Bustarga v. Navo II, 214 Phil. 86
(1984).