G.R. No. 150206 . March 13, 2009.
Heirs of TEOFILO GABATAN, namely: LOLITA GABATAN, POMPEYO GABATAN, PEREGRINO GABATAN, REYNALDO GABATAN, NILA GABATAN AND JESUS JABINIS, RIORITA GABATAN TUMALA and FREIRA GABATAN, Petitioners, vs. Hon. COURT OF APPEALS and LOURDES EVERO PACANA, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Lourdes Evero Pacana filed an action for Recovery of Property and Ownership and Possession against the petitioners, heirs of Teofilo Gabatan, Jesus Jabinis, and Catalino Acantilado, concerning a 1.1062-hectare parcel of land identified as Lot 3095 C-5 in Cagayan de Oro City. The lot was declared for taxation in the name of Juan Gabatan. Respondent claimed sole ownership by inheritance from her deceased mother, Hermogena Gabatan Evero, whom she alleged was the only child of Juan Gabatan and Laureana Clarito. She asserted that upon Juan’s death, the lot was entrusted for administration to his brother, Teofilo Gabatan, and Teofilo’s wife, Rita. Demands for its return by Hermogena and later by respondent were refused. Petitioners denied Hermogena was Juan’s daughter, claiming Juan died single and without issue in 1934, survived by his siblings Teofilo, Macaria, and Justa, from whom petitioners derive their claim. They asserted open, adverse, and continuous possession for over 50 years. Petitioners also noted a prior similar case (Civil Case No. 5840) filed by respondent against Rita Vda. de Gabatan was dismissed for lack of interest. They further alleged the land was already covered by OCT No. P-3316 in the name of the heirs of Juan Gabatan represented by petitioner Riorita Gabatan. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of respondent, declaring her the owner and ordering reconveyance of the title, plus damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s declaration that respondent Lourdes Evero Pacana is the sole heir of Juan Gabatan and thus the rightful owner of the disputed property, and in not finding her action barred by prescription or laches.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held that while a declaration of heirship should properly be made in a special proceeding and not in an ordinary action for recovery, the rule admits exceptions. In this case, both parties derived their claim of ownership from being heirs of Juan Gabatan, and the issue of heirship was precisely the crux of the case. The trial court had therefore properly taken cognizance of the issue. On the merits, the Court found respondent’s filiation to Juan Gabatan sufficiently established. It gave weight to a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Juan’s siblings and heirs, including Teofilo, which expressly identified Hermogena as an “Heir of the deceased, JUAN GABATAN.” This constituted a declaration against interest by petitioners’ predecessor, Teofilo, which petitioners could not deny. The Court also found respondent’s evidence, including testimonies and documents, more credible than petitioners’ evidence, which included a questionable baptismal certificate. Regarding prescription, the Court ruled that petitioners’ possession could not ripen into acquisitive prescription because their predecessor, Teofilo, held the property merely as an administrator or trustee, not in the concept of an owner. Consequently, the action for reconveyance, based on an implied trust, had not prescribed. The CA decision was affirmed.