G.R. No. 155080 ; February 5, 2004
SOLEDAD CALICDAN, represented by her guardian GUADALUPE CASTILLO, petitioner vs. SILVERIO CENDAÑA, substituted by his legal heir CELSA CENDAÑA-ALARAS, respondent.

FACTS

The case involves a parcel of unregistered land formerly owned by Sixto Calicdan. Upon his death in 1941, he was survived by his wife Fermina and three children, including petitioner Soledad Calicdan. In 1947, Fermina executed a deed of donation inter vivos over the land in favor of respondent Silverio Cendaña, who immediately took possession, fenced the property, and constructed a house in 1949 where he resided. In 1992, Soledad, through her guardian, filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession, arguing the donation was void as Fermina was not the sole owner and that respondent had taken advantage of her incompetence. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Soledad, declaring the donation void and ordering respondent to vacate and pay damages.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) the validity of the deed of donation inter vivos executed by Fermina; and (2) whether petitioner lost ownership of the land by prescription.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the complaint, but on different grounds. The Court first addressed the conflicting factual findings between the lower courts, justifying a review. It found the donation void. Under the Spanish Civil Code applicable at Sixto’s death, the surviving spouse Fermina only had a usufructuary right over her husband’s estate, not ownership. Since the land was Sixto’s exclusive property, Fermina could not validly donate it. Respondent’s claim that Sixto purchased the land was based on hearsay and unsupported by documentary evidence. However, the Court ruled that ownership was acquired by respondent through extraordinary acquisitive prescription. For unregistered land, ownership is acquired by uninterrupted adverse possession for thirty years. Respondent’s possession since 1947 was public, peaceful, continuous, exclusive, and in the concept of an owner, spanning over 45 years by the time the suit was filed. His acts of fencing, building a house, paying taxes, and declaring the property in his name constituted clear evidence of adverse claim. The void deed of donation still served to explain the exclusive and adverse character of his possession. Thus, while the donation was invalid, respondent became the rightful owner by prescription.