GR 135602; (April, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135602; April 28, 2000
HEIRS OF QUIRICO SERASPI AND PURIFICACION R. SERASPI, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND SIMEON RECASA, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners, heirs of Quirico and Purificacion Seraspi, sought to recover possession and ownership of two parcels of land in Banga, Aklan. The properties originally belonged to Marcelino Recasa. After his death, his estate was partitioned among his heirs from three marriages. Through a series of transactions, the Seraspis acquired the interests of the heirs from the first and second marriages in 1950. In 1958, the Seraspis mortgaged the lands to Kalibo Rural Bank, which foreclosed and sold them to Manuel Rata. Rata allowed Quirico Seraspi to administer the property.
In 1974, private respondent Simeon Recasa, a child from Marcelino’s third marriage, forcibly took possession of the lands while Quirico was ill. In 1983, the Seraspis repurchased the properties from Manuel Rata and subsequently filed a complaint for recovery of possession in 1987. The trial court ruled in favor of the Seraspis, but the Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action had prescribed after ten years.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the petitioners’ action for recovery of possession is barred by extinctive prescription. A secondary issue is whether private respondent acquired ownership through acquisitive prescription.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled for the petitioners. The appellate court erroneously applied the ten-year prescriptive period under the old Code of Civil Procedure, citing Arradaza v. Court of Appeals, which pertains to acquisitive prescription. The correct applicable law is Article 1141 of the Civil Code, which states that real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years. The petitioners filed their action in 1987, thirteen years after the dispossession in 1974, well within the thirty-year period; thus, extinctive prescription does not bar their claim.
Regarding acquisitive prescription, the Court held private respondent did not acquire ownership. For ordinary acquisitive prescription of ten years under Articles 1117 and 1134, possession must be in good faith and with just title. Private respondent possessed neither just title, as he did not acquire possession through any mode recognized by law for acquiring ownership, nor good faith, as he was a mere usurper who entered the property forcibly without consent. Extraordinary acquisitive prescription of thirty years under Article 1137 also did not apply, as his possession had not lasted that long. While the petitioners themselves were not yet full owners as delivery of the property from Rata was incomplete, their contractual title as vendees prevailed over the respondent’s unlawful possession, granting them the right to recover possession.