GR 84046; (July, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 84046, July 30, 1990
Gaudencio Ordoñez and Generosa Ordoñez, petitioners, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals and Monico Ordoñez, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gaudencio Ordoñez and private respondent Monico Ordoñez are full-blood brothers. The dispute involves two parcels of unregistered land Monico inherited: a residential lot with the ancestral house (“looban”) and a riceland (“tubigan”). On April 16, 1940, Monico sold the “tubigan” to Gaudencio via a notarized deed. Regarding the “looban,” Monico testified he verbally mortgaged it to Pedro Encarnacion for a P300 loan. Later, upon Monico’s request, Gaudencio paid P400 to Encarnacion to settle this debt, allegedly stepping into Encarnacion’s shoes as creditor. Gaudencio subsequently allowed his grandson to build a house on the “looban.”
On July 8, 1983, Monico filed a complaint to quiet title over both parcels and to eject Gaudencio’s grandson from the “looban.” The trial court declared Monico the owner of the “looban” and Gaudencio the owner of the “tubigan,” while dismissing the ejectment claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether Gaudencio acquired ownership of the “looban” through acquisitive prescription, thereby making Monico’s action to quiet title barred by prescription or laches.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the appellate court’s decision. The Court held that Monico’s action to quiet title was imprescriptible, as such an action does not prescribe when the plaintiff is in possession of the property. The factual findings of the lower courts established that Monico remained in actual occupancy of the “looban,” residing in the ancestral home. Gaudencio’s possession, evidenced merely by tax receipts, was not considered adverse or in the concept of an owner.
The legal logic is twofold. First, for acquisitive prescription to run, possession must be under a claim of title or adverse to the true owner. The Court found Gaudencio’s possession was by mere tolerance, as he never informed Monico or other relatives of any claim of purchase from Encarnacion. Acts performed by tolerance do not start the prescriptive period. Second, the burden of proof to establish a sale from Monico to Encarnacion (and thus a valid transfer to Gaudencio) rested on Gaudencio, which he failed to discharge. Therefore, Monico’s ownership, derived from inheritance, stood undisturbed. The tax receipts held by Gaudencio were merely indicia of possession, not title, and could not overcome Monico’s actual possession and superior claim.