Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mt. province vs.

CA

TOPIC: Loss of Possession (Art. 555)

FACTS:

 Petitioner filed a case for recovery of possession of tow lots against the heirs of
Egmidio Octaviano and Juan Valdez.
 The court ruled in the said case that Petitioner was in possession as borrower in
commodatum up to 1951, when it repudiated the trust by declaring the
properties in its name for taxation purposes. When petitioner applied for
registration of Lots 2 and 3 in 1962, it had been in possession in concept of owner
only for eleven years. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession for
ten years, but always with just title. Extraordinary acquisitive prescription
requires 30 years. The Court of Appeals found that petitioner did not meet the
requirement of 30 years possession for acquisitive prescription over Lots 2 and 3.
Neither did it satisfy the requirement of 10 years possession for ordinary
acquisitive prescription because of the absence of just title. The appellate court
did not believe the findings of the trial court that Lot 2 was acquired from Juan
Valdez by purchase and Lot 3 was acquired also by purchase from Egmidio
Octaviano by petitioner Vicar because there was absolutely no documentary
evidence to support the same and the alleged purchases were never mentioned
in the application for registration.
 Furthermore, the court also ruled that private respondents were able to prove
that their predecessors' house was borrowed by petitioner Vicar after the church
and the convent were destroyed. They never asked for the return of the house,
but when they allowed its free use, they became bailors in commodatum and the
petitioner the bailee. The bailees' failure to return the subject matter
of commodatum to the bailor did not mean adverse possession on the part of the
borrower. The bailee held in trust the property subject matter of commodatum.
The adverse claim of petitioner came only in 1951 when it declared the lots for
taxation purposes. The action of petitioner Vicar by such adverse claim could not
ripen into title by way of ordinary acquisitive prescription because of the absence
of just title.
 Therefore, the petition is denied.
 Hence, this motion for reconsideration
ISSUE:

Who is entitled to the possession of the said lots?

RULING:

The court ruled in favor of petitioner.

From the foregoing, it appears that the petitioner was in possession of the said property
as borrower in commodatum from private respondents since 1906 but in 1951 petitioner
repudiated the trust when it declared the property for tax purposes under its name.
When it filed its application for registration of the said property in 1962, petitioner had
been in adverse possession of the same for at least 11 years. Article 555 of the Civil Code
provides as follows:

Art. 555. A possessor may lose his possession:

(1) By the abandonment of the thing;

(2) By an assignment made to another either by onerous or

gratuitous title;

(3) By the destruction or total loss of the thing or because it

goes out of commerce;

(4) By the possession of another, subject to the provisions of

Article 537, if the new possession has lasted longer than one
year. But the real right of possession is not lost till after the
lapse of ten years. (460a) (Emphasis supplied.)

From the foregoing provision of the law, particularly paragraph 4 thereof, it is clear that
the real right of possession of private respondents over the property was lost or no
longer exists after the lapse of 10 years that petitioner had been in adverse possession
thereof. Thus, the action for recover of possession of said property filed by private
respondents against petitioner must fail.