2. Doliengo V.

Barniesa RATIO
G.R. L-2765 The Supreme Court held that Barniesa should be the lawful owner on the land since
12-27-1906 he was already occupying the said land ever since 1892. Hence, the prescription ran
By: Clyne against Doliengo on the basis that he wasn’t able to file anything regarding this
Topic: Acquisitve prescription; Tacking; Extinctive prescription matter not until 20 years after the purchase of Doliengo from Belarmino.
Petitioners: Jose Doliendo Furthermore, it is to be noticed that Barniesa occupied the land with the guise of
Respondents: Domingo Barniesa good faith and what happened herewith was an ordinary prescription. Therefore,
Ponente: J. Carson Barniesa is the rightful owner since Doliengo wasn’t able to assail his ownership
during the running of the prescription period.
RECIT-READY/SUMMARY: Doliengo bought a property from Belarmino. Belarmino
later on died and that the property in question was included in a public auction due
to subsisting obligations that occurred when he was alive. Barniesa bought such
property and began occupying it for more than 20 years. Doliengo filed a case
before the RTC averring that he is the rightful owner. RTC granted the motion in
favor of Doliengo. However, the Supreme Court ratiocinated otherwise on the basis
that Doliengo failed to assert his claim regarding the property in question since he
only filed a claim after 20 years.

DOCTRINE: An action for reacquisition of land should be filed within 10 years or

else such action will prescribe against the owner

FACTS
- Doliengo bought a property from Ventura Belarmino on 11-30-1888
- Belarmino later on died and that a proceeding was held for the
dissolution of her properties which thereby making the property in
question in this case to be included in a public auction
- Barniesa was able to buy this land and occupy it on 12-31-1892
- It is to be noted that he took possession of such land until the filing
of a complaint against the defendant
- The RTC ruled in favor of Doliengo on the basis that it was
sufficiently proven that Doliengo really bought it from Belarmino
- Hence this petition to the Supreme Court

ISSUE
Whether Doliengo is barred from reacquiring his property on the basis that
prescription already ran in favor of Barniesa

HELD
Yes, the judgment of the trial court is hereby reversed and now in favor of Barniesa