11/8/2016

ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly

536Phil.733

FIRSTDIVISION
[G.R.NO.169898,October27,2006]
SPOUSESANITAANDHONORIOAGUIRRE,PETITIONERS,VS.HEIRSOFLUCASVILLANUEVA,
NAMELY:JOSET.VILLANUEVA,PABLOT.VILLANUEVA,PEDROT.VILLANUEVA,RODOLFOT.
VILLANUEVA,DELIAV.DELATORRE,JUANITAV.INGLES,&SABELITOV.GELITO,
RESPONDENTS.

DECISION
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
ThispetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtassailstheDecision[1]datedMarch17,2005
oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.72530whichaffirmedtheDecision[2]datedAugust6,2001oftheRegional
TrialCourtofKalibo,Aklan,Branch8,inCivilCaseNo.5745,declaringprivaterespondentsasabsoluteownersofthe
subject parcel of land. Likewise assailed is the September 20, 2005 Resolution[3] denying petitioners' motion for
reconsideration.
Acomplaintforannulmentordeclarationofnullityofdeedofexchange,taxdeclarationsandrecoveryofownership
andpossessionwithdamageswasfiledbyprivaterespondentsagainstpetitioners.
PrivaterespondentsallegedthattheyarethelegitimatechildrenandgrandsonofthelatespousesLucasVillanueva
and Regina Tupas Villanueva that during the lifetime of Lucas Villanueva, he owned a parcel of residential land
designatedasLot764AsituatedatBarangayBalabag,Malay,Aklanwithanareaof140squaremeters,moreorless,
and declared for taxation purposes under his name under Tax Declaration No. 252 (1947) that spouses Villanueva
possessedthesubjectparceloflandduringtheirlifetimeopenly,publiclyandcontinuouslyintheconceptofanowner
and after their death, they were succeeded by their children that sometime in August 1997, petitioners and their
hired laborers fenced the whole land in question without the knowledge and consent of private respondents that
whenconfrontedbyprivaterespondentsconcerningthefencingoftheland,petitionersallegedthattheyacquiredthe
samethroughinheritancefromtheirfather,EutiquianoSalazar,whointurnpurchasedthelandfromthelateCiriacoH.
TirolbyvirtueofaDeedofExchangeofRealProperty.
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/44355

1/7

11/8/2016

ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly

IntheirAnswer,[4]petitionersclaimedthatpetitionerAnitaS.Aguirreisthelawfulownerandactualpossessorofthe
land in question, it being a portion of a bigger parcel of land she inherited from her deceased parents Eutiquiano
Salazar and Regina Supetran Salazar who bought the land from Ciriaco H. Tirol per Deed of Exchange of Real
Property [5]datedDecember31,1971andregisteredintheOfficeoftheRegisterofDeedsofAklanthattheparcelof
landisincludedunderTaxDeclarationNo.4033(1953)inthenameofTrinidadvda.deTirolandthesameisinthe
possessionoftheTirolfamilyasownerthereofcontinuously,openlyandadverselyevenbeforethesecondworldwar
that the land had been surveyed as part of Cadastral Lot 764, NP06000001, Malay Cadastre, in the name of
EutiquianoSalazarbytheBureauofLandsthatthelandhasbeendeclaredunderTaxDeclarationNo.1264(1974)
and subsequent tax declarations in the name of Eutiquiano Salazar that the land was first fenced with bamboos in
1981andwithcementhollowblocksin1985withoutanyoppositionfromprivaterespondentsandthattheactionis
barredbyprescriptionandprivaterespondentsareguiltyoflachesinfailingtoasserttheirallegedrightofownership
afterthelapseofmorethanfifty(50)yearssinceitwaspossessedbytheheirsofthelateTrinidadvda.deTirol.
OnAugust6,2001,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgment,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrendered:
1.Declaringtheplaintiffsthelawfulownersandentitledtopossessionofthelandinquestionidentified
as Lot 764A in the Commissioner's Sketch marked Exhibit "L", and as owners, are entitled to the
possessionofthesame
2.Orderingthedefendantstorestorepossessionofthelandinquestiontotheplaintiffs
3.Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the sum of One Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos
(P1,800.00)bywayoflitigationexpenses,andanothersumofFifteenThousandPesos(P15,000.00)
asreimbursementforattorney'sfeesand
4.OrderingtheProvincialAssessorofAklantoissueanewtaxdeclarationofthelandinquestioninthe
name of the plaintiffs upon compliance of the requirements of that office and upon payment of
appropriatetaxesonthelandincludingbacktaxes,ifany.
Forinsufficiencyofevidence,plaintiffsclaimformoraldamagesisdeniedandforlackofmerit,defendants
counterclaimisDISMISSED.
Withcostagainstthedefendants.
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/44355

2/7

11/8/2016

ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly

SOORDERED.[6]
The trial court noted that the tax declarations in the name of Trinidad vda. de Tirol and the survey plan did not
establishthefactthatCiriacoTirolistheownerandpossessorofthelandinquestion,thus,hehasnorighttotransfer
ownershipofthesametoEutiquianoSalazarthatpetitionerswerenotpossessorsingoodfaithsincetheyknewas
early as 1954 that private respondents were in possession of the land that petitioners did not acquire the land via
extraordinaryacquisitiveprescriptionconsideringthattheirpossessiononlylastedfor26yearsfrom1971upto1997
whenprivaterespondentsfirstinstitutedthecomplaint.
OnMarch17,2005,theCourtofAppealsrenderedadecisiondenyingpetitioners'appealandaffirmingintotothetrial
court'sdecision.
Petitioners'motionforreconsiderationwasdeniedhencethispetitionraisingthefollowingissues:
I.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE AGUIRRES HAD ACQUIRED TITLE OVER
THEDISPUTEDPROPERTYVIAORDINARYACQUISITIVEPRESCRIPTION
II.THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINNOTFINDINGTHATTHEVILLANUEVASCAUSEOFACTIONHAD
BEENBARREDBYPRESCRIPTION
III.THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINREFUSINGTOAPPLYTHEEQUITABLERULEONLACHES
IV.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE VILLANUEVAS WERE IN "POSSESSION" AND
"OWNERSHIP" OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF EXCHANGE
BETWEENCIRIACOTIROLANDTHEAGUIRRES'ASCENDANTPREDECESSORIN1971
V.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE AGUIRRES HAVE NOT PROVED THE ROOT OF
THEIRRIGHTOFOWNERSHIPOVERTHEDISPUTEDPROPERTYAND
VI.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING FOR THE AGUIRRES THE FACT THAT THE
LATTERHAD"JUSTTITLE,"ANDHADBEENINPOSSESSIONOFTHEDISPUTEDPROPERTY"INGOOD
FAITH"SINCE1971.[7]
Wefindmeritinthepetition.
ThisCourtisnotatrieroffacts.However,iftheinferencedrawnbytheappellatecourtfromthefactsismanifestly
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/44355

3/7

11/8/2016

ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly

mistaken, as in the instant case, we can review the evidence in order to arrive at the correct factual conclusions
basedontherecord.[8]
Prescription,ingeneral,isamodeofacquiring(orlosing)ownershipandotherrealrightsthroughthelapseoftimein
themannerandunderconditionslaiddownbylaw,namely,thatthepossessionshouldbeintheconceptofanowner,
public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse. Acquisitive prescription is either ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary
acquisitiveprescriptionrequirespossessioningoodfaithandwithjusttitlefor10years.Withoutgoodfaithandjust
title,acquisitiveprescriptioncanonlybeextraordinaryincharacterwhichrequiresuninterruptedadversepossession
for30years.[9]
Thus,forordinaryacquisitiveprescriptiontosetin,possessionmustbeforatleast10years,ingoodfaithandwith
just title. Possession is "in good faith" when there is a reasonable belief that the person from whom the thing is
received has been the owner thereof and could thereby transmit his ownership.[10] There is "just title" when the
adverse claimant comes into possession of the property through any of the modes recognized by law for the
acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but the grantor is neither the owner nor in a position to transmit the
right."[11]
In the instant case, we find sufficient evidence to support petitioners' claim that the requirements for ordinary
prescriptionarepresent.
Thetrialcourtfoundthatpetitioners'possessionwasformorethan10yearsandwithjusttitle,thus:
Thereisnoquestionthatthedefendantshavebeeninpublic,anduninterruptedpossessionofthelandin
questionintheconceptofanownerforaspanoftwentysix(26)yearsfromthetimethelandinquestion
wasincludedinthedeedofexchangein1971uptothetimetheplaintiffscomplainedin1997(Exh."K").
Thereisalsonoquestionthatdefendants'possessionofthelandinquestionwaswithjusttitle.Justtitlein
thesensethatthedefendantsacquiredthelandinquestionbywayofexchangewhichisoneofthemodes
recognizedbylawinacquiringownership.[12]
Contraryhowevertothefindingsofthetrialcourt,petitionerspossessedthepropertyingoodfaith.PetitionerAnita
Aguire's father, Eutiquiano Salazar, bought the subject property from Ciriaco Tirol, whose claim on the property is
foundedonthefollowingdocuments:(1)TaxDeclarationNo.729inthenameofTrinidadvda.deTirolfortheyear
1945(Exhibit"4")(2)TaxDeclarationNo.4033inthenameofTrinidadvda.deTirolfortheyear1953(Exhibit"4
A") and (3) the survey plan approved by the Bureau of Lands in 1952 (Exhibit "6"). Thus, petitioners honestly
believedthatownershipofthesubjectparceloflandwastransmittedtoAnitabysuccessionfromhisdeceasedfather,
andwhothereafterpossessedthepropertyandexerciseddominionoverit.
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/44355

4/7

11/8/2016

ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly

Likewise, the trial court's finding that petitioner Anita Aguirre was not a possessor in good faith since she knew as
earlyas1954thatprivaterespondentswereinpossessionofthedisputedlandhasnobasis.AnitaAguirretestified
thatMagdalenaTupasbuiltahouseinthecontrovertedpropertyin1957withthepermissionofBernardoEscalante,
theadministratoroftheTirols.[13]
Toprovetheirownership,petitionerspresentedTaxDeclarationNo.1264fortheyear1974(Exhibit"4B")andother
tax declarations (Exhibits "4C, "4D", "5" and submarkings) for the year 1980 to 1994, in the name of Eutiquiano
Salazar declaring the subject land for taxation purposes. While tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive
evidence of ownership and do not prove title to the land, nevertheless, when coupled with actual possession, they
constituteevidenceofgreatweightandcanbethebasisofaclaimofownershipthroughprescription.[14]
Records also show that Lucas Villanueva, private respondents' predecessorininterest, did not actually possess the
subject property during his lifetime. Private respondent Delia Villanueva Dela Torre, testified that her parents while
stillaliveresidedinSitioDiniwid,Balabag,Malay,Aklan,aboutlessthanakilometerawayfromthelandinquestion.
[15] Neither did any of the private respondents ever reside therein.[16] The actual possession by the private

respondents rests solely on the possession of Magdalena Tupas and her husband for eight years allegedly with the
permissionofReginaTupasVillanueva.However,thetestimoniesofRubioSastreandMagdalenaTupasregardingthe
actualpossessionofLucasVillanuevathroughplantingoftreesandgatheringoffruitscannotbegivenfullweightand
credence because the witnesses were of tender years then, barely seven or twelve years old, and did not have
discernment of the concept of possession and ownership. Moreover, no evidence was presented on how Lucas
Villanueva acquired the land in question from Eusebio Sacapano, the uncle of Regina Tupas Villanueva. In addition,
TaxDeclarationNo.252fortheyear1947(Exhibit"C")inthenameofLucasVillanuevadoesnothaveprobativevalue
sinceitwasexecutedfouryearsafterthedeathofLucasVillanuevain1943.Taxreceiptssubmittedbytheprivate
respondentsinpaymentfortheyear1986upto1996wereactuallypaidonthesameday,February20,1996byhis
sonDionitoVillanueva.[17]
On the other hand, after buying the property in 1971, petitioners possessed the same in the concept of an owner.
They peacefully occupied it, built fences, planted plants and used the same as ingress and egress towards their
cottages.Havingbeenincontinuouspossessionandenjoymentofthedisputedlandingoodfaithandwithajusttitle
since1971until1997,petitionersdoubtlesslyobtainedtitlebyordinaryacquisitiveprescription.
Moreover, the action is barred by laches which is defined as the failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or
declinedtoassertit.Thisequitabledefenseisbasedupongroundsofpublicpolicy,whichrequiresthediscouragement
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/44355

5/7

11/8/2016

ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly

ofstaleclaimsforthepeaceofsociety.[18]
Intheinstantcase,privaterespondentsknewasearlyas1981thatpetitionersarebuildingfencesintheperimeterof
thedisputedlandbutdidnottakeactiontoasserttheirrightsoverthesubjectparcelofland.Theywaited16long
yearstooustpetitionersfromthepossessionoftheland.Definitely,lacheshadalreadysetin.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheDecisiondatedMarch17,2005oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.
72530,affirmingthedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofKalibo,Aklan,Branch8,inCivilCaseNo.5745,ishereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners are hereby DECLARED as lawful owners of the subject property through
acquisitiveprescription.
SOORDERED.
Panganiban,C.J.,(Chairperson),AustriaMartinez,Callejo,Sr.,andChicoNazario,JJ.,concur.

[1]Rollo,pp.5762.PennedbyAssociateJusticeIsaiasP.DicdicanandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesVicenteL.

YapandEnricoA.Lanzanas.
[2]Id.at82108.PennedbyJudgeEustaquioG.Terencio.
[3]Id.at6364.
[4]Id.at7681.
[5]Id.at7374.
[6]Id.at107108.
[7]Id.at1920.
[8]HeirsofFloresRestarv.HeirsofDoloresR.Cichon,G.R.No.161720.November22,2005,475SCRA731,739.
[9]HeirsofSegundaManingdingv.CourtofAppeals,342Phil.567,574(1997)SeealsoCIVILCODE,Arts.1117,1134
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/44355

6/7

11/8/2016

ELibraryInformationAtYourFingertips:PrinterFriendly

&1137.
[10]Id.,Art.1127.
[11]Id.,Art.1129.
[12]Rollo,p.105.
[13]TSN,May16,2000,p.15.
[14]HeirsofFloresRestarv.HeirsofDoloresR.Cichon,supranote8at741.
[15]TSN,October8,1999,p.7.
[16]Id.at2526.
[17]TSN,December2,1999,p.13.
[18]Vda.DeRigonanv.Derecho,G.R.No.159571,July15,2005,463SCRA627,648.

Source:SupremeCourtELibrary
Thispagewasdynamicallygenerated
bytheELibraryContentManagementSystem(ELibCMS)

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/44355

7/7