GR 174844; (March, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174844; March 20, 2013
Vevencia Echin Pabalan, et al., Petitioner, vs. The Heirs of Simeon A.B. Maamo, Sr., Respondents.
FACTS
The dispute involves a parcel of land originally sold in 1910 by Onofre Palapo to Placido Sy-Cansoy. In 1934, Placido executed a deed confirming a prior 1912 sale of the same land to Antonia Bayon, wife of Miguel Maamo. That same year, Antonia, through her son Simeon Maamo, filed an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 298) against Simplecio Palapo, who had entered the property. The court ruled in Antonia’s favor, ordering Simplecio to vacate. Decades later, in 1981, the heirs of Antonia (the Maamos) filed a complaint for recovery of real property against the heirs of Simplecio (the Palapos), claiming ownership over a 7,055-square-meter portion which the Palapos allegedly occupied illegally after Simplecio’s death. The Palapos defended their possession, asserting ownership through inheritance from their father, who they claimed inherited it from his brother, and argued their open, continuous, and adverse possession since 1906.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Maamos’ action to recover the land is barred by prescription and whether the Palapos have acquired ownership through acquisitive prescription.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Palapos, affirming the Regional Trial Court’s decision and reversing the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Maamos’ cause of action had prescribed. An action for recovery of title or possession of real property prescribes in ten years from the accrual of the cause of action. The accrual date was December 17, 1934, when the ejectment court rendered judgment in favor of Antonia Maamo, declaring her as the possessor and ordering Simplecio to vacate. This judgment constituted a repudiation of any tolerance or permission for Simplecio to remain. From that moment, his possession became adverse to the Maamos. The Maamos filed their recovery suit only in 1981, nearly five decades later, well beyond the ten-year prescriptive period. Consequently, their right to recover the property was extinguished.
Furthermore, the Court found that the Palapos had acquired ownership through ordinary acquisitive prescription. Possession must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted for ten years. The 1934 ejectment judgment severed any claim of possession by tolerance. From 1934 onward, Simplecio’s possession, and later his heirs’, was adverse. They paid real property taxes consistently, a strong indication of a claim of ownership. This adverse possession lasted for over thirty years before the suit was filed, more than sufficient for acquisitive prescription under the Civil Code. The Maamos’ long inaction constituted laches. Thus, the Palapos were declared the legal owners.