G.R. No. L-18752 July 30, 1966
CATALINA MENDOZA and RODOLFO PAREJA, petitioners, vs. TEMISTOCLES C. MELLA, respondent.

FACTS

The litigated property is lot No. 3390-B of the Sorsogon cadastre, originally owned by Paciano Pareja, who donated it to his son Gavino in 1939. Gavino disappeared in 1943 and has not been heard of since. At the time of his disappearance, he was living with his common-law wife Catalina Mendoza and their son Rodolfo Pareja, the petitioners. In 1948, Paciano Pareja sold the lot to Temistocles C. Mella (respondent). In 1952, Mella notified petitioners to vacate the lot, which they refused. Mella filed an action for recovery of possession in 1955. Petitioners claimed ownership for Rodolfo on two grounds: (1) succession from his father Gavino, and (2) adverse possession for more than ten years. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of Mella. The Court of Appeals found that Gavino Pareja died in 1943 and that petitioners’ possession of the property was by tolerance of Paciano Pareja and thus not adverse.

ISSUE

1. Whether the death of Gavino Pareja should be presumed to have occurred in 1943 or only after the lapse of ten years from his disappearance in 1953 under Article 390 of the Civil Code.
2. Whether Rodolfo Pareja is an acknowledged natural child entitled to successional rights from Gavino Pareja.
3. Whether petitioners have acquired ownership by acquisitive prescription.
4. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation for improvements made on the land.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court declined to resolve the issue regarding the presumption of death under Article 390 of the Civil Code, as it was raised for the first time on appeal. The Court noted that the parties, including petitioners in their pleadings and testimony, had previously treated Gavino Pareja’s death as having occurred in 1943. The applicability of Article 390 was not raised in the Court of Appeals.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that Rodolfo Pareja is not an acknowledged natural child. The birth certificate (Exhibit 1) presented as proof was insufficient. The Court held that while a birth certificate registered under Act No. 3753 (the Civil Registry Law) could serve as a public document for voluntary recognition under Article 131 of the Spanish Civil Code, the specific certificate in question did not show that the parents signed or swore to its contents as required. Furthermore, the document contained no clear statement by the parent recognizing the child as his own.
3. The Supreme Court sustained the denial of the plea of acquisitive prescription. It upheld the factual finding of the Court of Appeals that petitioners’ possession was by tolerance of Paciano Pareja and therefore not adverse prior to the 1948 sale. After the sale, only seven years had elapsed before the complaint was filed in 1955, which is insufficient for acquisitive prescription.
4. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of petitioners’ claim for the value of improvements. The Court of Appeals had ruled that this claim was offset by the reasonable rentals petitioners were bound to pay from 1952 when demand for possession was first made.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.