G.R. No. L-8018 October 26, 1955
GIL ATUN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. EUSEBIO NUÑEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellants, Gil Atun, Camila Atun, and Dorotea Atun, filed a complaint for recovery of a parcel of registered land located in Legaspi City. The land was registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 11696 in the name of Estefania Atun, the deceased aunt of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed they inherited the land from Estefania Atun, who died without issue. They possessed the land from 1927 to 1930, after which plaintiff Gil Atun delivered it to Silvestra Nuñez for cultivation, with Silvestra paying a share of the harvest as rental. In 1940, Silvestra turned over the land to defendant Eusebio Nuñez, who thereafter refused to recognize the plaintiffs’ ownership or deliver their share of the produce. Eusebio Nuñez later sold the land to his co-defendant Diego Belga, who took the property with knowledge that it belonged to the plaintiffs, not Nuñez. After the plaintiffs closed their evidence, the defendants filed a demurrer to the evidence. The lower court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the ten-year period for filing an action for recovery under section 40 of Act 190 (computed from 1940 when plaintiffs lost possession) had elapsed, thus the action had prescribed, and that the plaintiffs failed to prove their alleged ownership, so the presumption that the defendants, as possessors, are lawful owners was not overcome. The plaintiffs appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs-appellants’ complaint on the ground of prescription of action.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal is erroneous. The land is covered by a Torrens title in the name of Estefania Atun. Section 40 of Act 496 expressly provides that no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right of a registered owner to recover possession of registered property is imprescriptible, as possession is a mere consequence of ownership. The statute of limitations ( Act No. 190 ) is partially amended by the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ) concerning registered lands, such that ten years’ adverse possession cannot defeat the owner’s right to possession. Furthermore, if prescription is unavailing against the registered owner, it is equally unavailing against the owner’s hereditary successors, who step into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law. The lower court also erred in ruling that the plaintiffs failed to show a better title. Since the land remains registered in Estefania Atun’s name, her legal heirs are the present owners. The plaintiffs, as children of her brother Nicolas, are her only surviving heirs and may file an action arising from a right belonging to their ancestor without a separate judicial declaration of heirship, as there was no pending special proceeding for the estate settlement. Reversal of a demurrer to the evidence in civil cases results in loss of the defendant’s right to submit evidence. Judgment is rendered based on the plaintiffs’ evidence, which supports their claim of ownership. The order appealed from is reversed. Plaintiffs-appellants are declared lawful owners in common of the lot. Defendants-appellees are ordered to surrender possession to the plaintiffs and indemnify them in the amount of P500 as damages.