G.R. No. 169956 January 19, 2009
SPOUSES JONEL PADILLA and SARAH PADILLA, Petitioners, vs. ISAURO A. VELASCO, TEODORA A. VELASCO, DELIA A. VELASCO, VALERIANO A. VELASCO, JR., IDA A. VELASCO, AMELITA C. VELASCO, ERIBERTO C. VELASCO, JR., and CELIA C. VELASCO, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents are the heirs of Dr. Artemio A. Velasco, who died single and without issue in 1949. During his lifetime, Artemio acquired Lot No. 2161 (7,791 sqm) in Pagsanjan, Laguna, from spouses Brigido Sacluti and Melitona Obial via a deed of sale dated February 14, 1944. The lot was covered by Decree No. 403348 (issued October 10, 1930) and tax declarations in Artemio’s name. After Artemio’s death, his brother Isauro acted as administrator. In October 1987, petitioners entered the property as trustees by virtue of a deed of sale executed by the Rural Bank of Pagsanjan in favor of spouses Bartolome Solomon, Jr. and Teresita Padilla (Solomon spouses). Petitioners refused respondents’ demand to vacate, cut trees, fenced the area, built a house, and harvested crops. Respondents filed a complaint for accion publiciana, accounting, and damages on October 14, 1991. Petitioners claimed the Solomon spouses bought the property (identified as Lot No. 76-pt) from the bank, which acquired it at a public auction after foreclosing on a mortgage executed by respondent Valeriano Velasco. The RTC ruled in favor of respondents, ordering petitioners to vacate, render an accounting, and remove structures. The CA affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

1. Who, as between the parties, has a better right of possession of Lot No. 2161?
2. Whether the complaint for accion publiciana has already prescribed.
3. Whether the negligence of respondents’ counsel entitles petitioners to a new trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition.
1. On the better right of possession: The action was for accion publiciana, a plenary action to recover possession independently of title. Respondents established lawful possession. Artemio acquired the lot in 1944 and possessed it until his death. Isauro administered it thereafter. Evidence, including a geodetic engineer’s survey, proved the land occupied by petitioners was Lot No. 2161, owned by Artemio. The property sold by the bank to the Solomon spouses was Lot No. 76-pt, previously owned by Valeriano. Petitioners failed to prove Lot No. 76-pt and Lot No. 2161 were the same. Respondents’ possession was lawful and prior. Petitioners’ entry in 1987 was by mere tolerance of the Solomon spouses, who had no valid claim. The factual findings of the RTC and CA on these matters are conclusive.
2. On prescription: The action was not barred. Accion publiciana prescribes in ten years from the accrual of the cause of action. Petitioners entered the property in October 1987. Respondents filed the complaint in October 1991, well within the ten-year period.
3. On negligence of counsel and new trial: The alleged negligence of respondents’ counsel (failure to present certain documents/witnesses) did not warrant a new trial. Negligence of counsel generally binds the client. The Court found no serious injustice or uneven playing field resulting from the alleged negligence. Petitioners’ other arguments (e.g., estoppel, laches, good faith) were without merit. Respondents’ failure to immediately question the bank’s actions against Valeriano did not estop them, as the foreclosed property (Lot No. 76-pt) was different from their property (Lot No. 2161). Petitioners were not builders in good faith as they built structures with knowledge of respondents’ claim.