G.R. No. 117642 April 24, 1998
EDITHA ALVIOLA and PORFERIO ALVIOLA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, FORENCIA BULING Vda de TINAGAN, DEMOSTHENES TINAGAN, JESUS TINAGAN, ZENAIDA T., JOSEP and JOSEPHINE TINAGAN, respondents.

FACTS

On April 1, 1950, Victoria Sonjaconda Tinagan purchased two parcels of land in Negros Oriental from Mauro Tinagan. Victoria and her son Agustin Tinagan took possession of the lands. In 1960, petitioners Editha and Porferio Alviola occupied portions of the land, building a copra dryer and a store for their copra business. Victoria died on June 23, 1975, and Agustin died on October 26, 1975, survived by his wife and children (the private respondents). On December 24, 1976, petitioner Editha, claiming to be an acknowledged natural child of Agustin, filed a complaint for partition and damages, which was dismissed by the trial court and subsequently by the Supreme Court. On March 29, 1988, private respondents filed a complaint for recovery of possession against the petitioners. The trial court ruled in favor of the private respondents, declaring them absolute owners and ordering the petitioners to vacate, pay rentals, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioners have a valid claim of ownership or right to possess the disputed portions of land, specifically challenging the Court of Appeals’ declaration of private respondents as absolute owners and its findings regarding the nature of petitioners’ possession and the improvements (copra dryer and store).

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the assailed decision. It held that the private respondents adduced overwhelming evidence of ownership, including a Deed of Sale, a continuous series of tax declarations in the names of the Tinagans (Mauro, Agustin, and Jesus), and receipts of real estate tax payments. The Court found that Victoria and Agustin had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the properties for over 40 years in the concept of owners. The petitioners’ own tax declarations acknowledged the land as belonging to Victoria/Agustin Tinagan, undermining their claim. The Court rejected petitioners’ claim that Victoria ceded the portions to them in exchange for a debt, deeming it an unsubstantiated afterthought. It ruled that petitioners’ possession was merely by tolerance of the private respondents and their predecessors, not by occupation or acquisitive prescription. The Court also found both parties in bad faith regarding the constructions. However, since the copra dryer and store were determined to be transferable (not permanent) structures, Article 448 of the Civil Code on accession was inapplicable. The proper remedy for the landowners was an action for recovery of possession, which was correctly filed.