Montanez v.

Montanez
O.G. No. 51
January 31, 1955

Facts:
This is a case for partition over a parcel of land. The dispute is between siblings.
Jacinto (the manghud) claims that the land was co-owned by them as the same forms part of the
estate of their deceased parents
Gregorio (the kuya) claims that the property is exclusively owned by him as the same was
bought by him from a third person. That his mother, before her demise, used to live in his
property.
Gregorios acquisition of the property was allegedly evidenced by a document which was
drafted by the muncipal clerk. Tax declaration thereon and documents relating to the property
were kept by him in his house. However, these documents can no longer be produced since the
same were destroyed during Japanese occupation.
RTC ruled in favor of Gregorio on the ground of acquisitive prescription
CA affirmed

Issue:
WON RTC erred in deciding in favor of Gregorio when it held that the latter acquired the propety
through acquisitive prescription even if such ground was not used by Gregorio as a defense

Held:
NO.
It is true that Gregorio did not, in his answer, affirmatively plead or interpose the defense of
prescription. It is not correct, however, to say that such failure to interpose the defense of prescription
of action on the part of the defendant amounted to a waiver of such defense. For in fact, counsel for the
defendant Gregorio denied all the averments of the complaint relative to the plaintiffs (Jacintos) claim
that the lot in controversy was hereditary property. Defendant, in his answer, averred that the property
referred to by the plaintiffs as hereditary had been purchased by and therefore exclusively belonged to
the defendant.

Prescription extintiva or prescription of action should be affirmatively pleaded and proved in

order to bar the action or claim of the adverse party whereas prescription adquisitiva, or acquisitive
prescription can be proven under the general issue without its being affirmatively pleaded. Therefore,
failure to allege prescription of action does not constitute as a bar to prove title to property through
prescription adquisitiva as long as there is a claim of exclusive ownership thereof.

The fact therefore that defendant Gregorio failed to allege prescription of action does not
constitute as a bar for him to prove his title through prescritpion adquisitiva, claiming as he did exclusive
ownership of the lot.