G.R. No. L-5397
FABIAN ARRIOLA Y CABRERA, as administratrix of the estate of Simona Cabrera, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CAROLINA GOMEZ DE LA SERNA, defendant-appellee.
December 17, 1909

FACTS:
Plaintiff-appellant Fabian Arriola y Cabrera, as administratrix of the estate of Simona Cabrera, filed an action of ejectment to recover a parcel of land in Manila. The plaintiff has no documentary title and relies on witness testimony that her mother, Simona Cabrera, possessed the land until around 1882 when she was ousted by a court order, and possession was taken by Jose M. Perez Rubio.

Defendant-appellee Carolina Gomez de la Serna claims title by inheritance from her deceased husband, Jose M. Perez Rubio, under a contract of distribution among his heirs. Jose M. Perez Rubio acquired title by conveyance from the Court of Quiapo on December 21, 1881, and immediately entered into possession. He and his heirs have continuously possessed the property publicly, peacefully, and without interruption down to the commencement of this action.

The plaintiff contends that Jose M. Perez Rubio’s possession was not in good faith because, subsequent to the conveyance, the court case was reopened, the order of conveyance suspended, and nothing further was done. She argues that Rubio, being a lawyer, knew of the defect in his title. The defendant, however, claims ownership based not only on her husband’s rights but also on her own personal occupancy and possession of the land for more than 10 years (since February 15, 1896, until the action commenced on October 17, 1908), in good faith and with a just title, derived from inheritance and the distribution contract.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant-appellee, Carolina Gomez de la Serna, has acquired ownership of the land through acquisitive prescription based on her own possession in good faith and with a proper title.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that the defendant-appellee, Carolina Gomez de la Serna, acquired ownership of the land by virtue of prescription.

The Court found it unnecessary to discuss the alleged bad faith of Jose M. Perez Rubio. It focused on the defendant’s own claim of possession. Under Article 1957 of the Civil Code, ownership and other property rights in real property prescribe by possession for ten years (for persons present) with good faith and proper title. Article 434 presumes good faith, and the burden of proving bad faith lies with the person alleging it.

The defendant has been possessing the land since February 15, 1896, under a proper title (inheritance from her husband and the distribution contract). The Court noted that an heir, by hereditary title, does not suffer the consequences of the testator’s faulty possession unless it is proven that the heir had knowledge of the defects (Article 442, Civil Code). There was no proof in the record that the defendant had knowledge of any defects, if any, in her husband’s title. Thus, her own good faith possession is independent of his.

Since the defendant took possession on February 15, 1896, in good faith and with a proper title, and publicly, peacefully, and uninterruptedly possessed the same down to the commencement of the action on October 17, 1908 (a period exceeding 10 years), she became the owner of the land by virtue of prescription.