GR 158929; (August, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158929; August 3, 2010
ROSARIO P. TAN, Petitioner, vs. ARTEMIO G. RAMIREZ, MOISES G. RAMIREZ, RODRIGO G. RAMIREZ, DOMINGO G. RAMIREZ, and MODESTA RAMIREZ ANDRADE, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rosario P. Tan, representing her parents, filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession against respondents, heirs of Roberto Ramirez, over a one-half portion of a parcel of land in Leyte. Petitioner claimed her great-grandfather Catalino Jaca Valenzona originally owned the land. Upon Catalino’s death, his daughter Gliceria inherited it. Gliceria died childless in 1952, survived by her husband Gavino Oyao. Petitioner’s mother, Nicomedesa, claimed the other half-share by representing her predeceased mother (Gliceria’s sister) and through purchases from other heirs. Nicomedesa later purchased Gavino’s half-share from his heirs in 1965 and subsequently sold that same half to Roberto Ramirez. In 1997, Nicomedesa discovered Roberto had been declaring the entire property in his name since 1974.
Respondents asserted Roberto acquired full ownership. They claimed he bought half from Nicomedesa in 1965 and the other half from Gavino’s heirs in 1972. They further argued ownership was solidified when Roberto purchased the property from a claimant, Santa Belacho, in 1977, and through a compromise agreement that settled a prior litigation.
ISSUE
Whether respondents have acquired ownership of the entire property through extraordinary acquisitive prescription.
RULING
No, respondents did not acquire the property through extraordinary acquisitive prescription. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling declaring Roberto Ramirez as the lawful owner, but on different grounds, specifically rejecting the prescription argument. For extraordinary acquisitive prescription (30 years) to apply, possession must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted. The Court found respondents’ possession was not in good faith. Roberto Ramirez was originally a tenant of Nicomedesa, making him aware of her claim of ownership over a portion of the land. His subsequent act of securing a tax declaration solely in his name in 1974, despite this knowledge, constituted bad faith. Possession in bad faith does not ripen into ownership by extraordinary prescription. The period for such prescription commences only from the time possession becomes adverse. Counting from 1974 until the complaint was filed in 1998 yields only 24 years, insufficient to meet the 30-year requirement. Therefore, ownership could not vest via prescription. The Court ultimately upheld Roberto’s ownership based on the series of valid purchases and the compromise agreement, which effectively cleared all conflicting claims to the property.