G.R. No. 230784, February 15, 2022
HEIRS OF ANGEL YADAO, ET AL. AND HEIRS OF JOSEFINA IDICA-YADAO, ET AL. AND HEIRS OF OFELIA YADAO-NACENO, ET AL., petitioners, versus HEIRS OF JUAN CALITINA, NAMELY: HOSPICIO CALITINA, JR., ANICETO CALITINA, AND FLORIDA CALITINA, respondents.

FACTS

The main controversy involves an alleged 31-year-old sale of Lot 1087, Cadastre 317-D, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-479(S) in the name of Juan Calitina. The petitioners, Heirs of Angel Yadao, Heirs of Josefina Idica-Yadao, and Heirs of Ofelia Yadao-Naceno, claim ownership either by virtue of a “Contrata” and a subsequent Deed of Absolute Sale (DoAS) entered into by Juan Calitina’s common-law wife Casiana Dalo and his illegitimate children, Jose and William Calitina, with Josefina and Domingo Yadao, or by acquisitive prescription through over 30 years of possession. The respondents, Heirs of Juan Calitina, assert ownership by succession and claim the petitioners’ possession is unlawful based on an unproven contract. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled for the respondents, declaring them absolute owners by succession and ordering the petitioners to restore possession, finding no evidence of a valid sale as the Contrata was unnotarized and Casiana Dalo was unauthorized to sell. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC, holding that acquisitive prescription does not apply to registered land. The ponencia (majority decision) granted the petition, reversed the lower courts, dismissed the respondents’ complaint, and declared the petitioners owners, applying extinctive prescription and validating the series of sales.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners have duly proven their ownership over the entire subject property such that the respondents’ claim for recovery is barred by extinctive prescription.

RULING

The dissenting opinion disagrees with the ponencia’s application of extinctive prescription and its declaration that the petitioners are the lawful owners of the entire 1,797-square-meter property. It finds no factual support for the conclusion that the subject property was sold in its entirety by all of Juan Calitina’s heirs. The records indicate that the Contrata and the unregistered DoAS are inferior in probative weight to the Torrens title held by the respondents. Furthermore, tax declarations presented by petitioners show inconsistencies, referring to a 400-square-meter area with different boundaries, unlike the 1,797-square-meter area in the OCT. The dissent concludes that, at best, only a 400-square-meter portion was lawfully conveyed, and for the unsold portions, extinctive prescription does not apply. The petitioners failed to prove the identity of the property claimed under Article 434 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the dissent votes to DENY the petition, as respondents’ right to assert their claim survives.