G.R. No. 168902 ; September 28, 2007
BARTOLA M. VDA. DE TIRONA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. CIRILO ENCARNACION, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners are the heirs of Teodoro Tirona, who, with his brother Benjamin, co-owned a tract of land in Kawit, Cavite covered by TCT No. (T-13391) RT-1883, which included Lot 965 and allegedly Lot 966. On October 3, 1959, Teodoro sold his one-half undivided interest to respondent Cirilo Encarnacion via a Deed of Absolute Sale, which specifically described the property as “Lot No. 965.” Respondent immediately took possession. Benjamin Tirona later sold his own one-half share to respondent’s father in 1963, and respondent eventually became the owner of the entire property. Petitioners, however, claimed that the land actually consisted of two separate lots, 965 and 966, and that only Lot 965 was sold.
In 1973, petitioners filed an ejectment case against respondent, which was dismissed. They refiled an accion publiciana in 1995 before the RTC of Imus, Cavite, seeking to recover possession of Lot 966, alleging respondent encroached upon it. Respondent countered that his possession was in the concept of an owner, open, continuous, and exclusive since 1959, and that petitioners’ action had prescribed.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners’ action for recovery of possession (accion publiciana) has prescribed.

RULING

Yes, the action has prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts dismissing the complaint. An accion publiciana must be filed within ten years from the date the cause of action accrues. The cause of action accrues when the plaintiff is deprived of possession through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In this case, petitioners alleged respondent entered Lot 966 in the early 1960s. Their own witness, petitioner Cristina Dacanay, testified that she confronted respondent about his occupation of Lot 966 in the early 1960s and he defiantly asserted his claim. This confrontation clearly made petitioners aware of an alleged dispossession at that time.
Therefore, the ten-year prescriptive period began to run in the early 1960s. By waiting until 1995 to file the accion publiciana, petitioners filed the suit well beyond the ten-year period. The Court rejected petitioners’ argument that the period should be counted from a later date, ruling that prescription runs from the moment the action may be brought. Since petitioners were aware of the alleged encroachment decades earlier but failed to act within the reglementary period, their right to bring the action was extinguished by prescription.