JAIME ABALOS and SPOUSES FELIX SALAZAR and CONSUELO SALAZAR, GLICERIO ABALOS, HEIRS OF AQUILINO ABALOS, namely: SEGUNDA BAUTISTA, ROGELIO ABALOS, DOLORES A. ROSARIO, FELICIDAD ABALOS, ROBERTO ABALOS, JUANITO ABALOS, TITA ABALOS, LITA A. DELA CRUZ AND HEIRS OF AQUILINA ABALOS, namely: ARTURO BRAVO, PURITA B. MENDOZA, LOURDES B. AGANON, CONSUELO B. SALAZAR, PRIMA B. DELOS SANTOS, THELMA APOSTOL and GLECERIO ABALOS, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF VICENTE TORIO, namely: PUBLIO TORIO, LIBORIO TORIO, VICTORINA TORIO, ANGEL TORIO, LADISLAO TORIO, PRIMO TORIO and NORBERTO TORIO, Respondents.
FACTS
On July 24, 1996, respondents (Heirs of Vicente Torio) filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages against Jaime Abalos and the spouses Felix and Consuelo Salazar with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Binmaley, Pangasinan. Respondents claimed to be the heirs of Vicente Torio, who died intestate in 1973, leaving a parcel of land in San Isidro Norte, Binmaley, Pangasinan. They alleged that during Vicente’s lifetime and through his tolerance, the defendants were allowed to stay and build houses on the land. Even after Vicente’s death, respondents allowed them to remain, but in 1985, they demanded that defendants vacate, which the defendants refused, prompting the lawsuit. The other petitioners (intervenors) filed an Answer in Intervention, making similar claims of ownership. The MTC ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering the defendants and intervenors to vacate the land, remove their houses, pay land rent, and pay attorney’s fees. Only Jaime Abalos and the Spouses Salazar appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC reversed the MTC, holding that the appellants had acquired the property through prescription and dismissed the complaint. Respondents then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC and reinstated the MTC decision. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners have acquired absolute and exclusive ownership of the land in question by virtue of acquisitive prescription.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that:
1. Finality of Judgment as to Intervenors: The petitioners who were intervenors in the MTC did not appeal the MTC’s Decision. Their failure to perfect an appeal rendered the MTC judgment final and executory as to them.
2. Question of Fact: The core issue of whether petitioners possessed the land as owners or by mere tolerance of respondents is a question of fact. As a rule, questions of fact are not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. While an exception exists when factual findings of the CA and trial court are conflicting, the Court, after review, found no error in the factual findings and conclusions of the CA and the MTC.
3. Failure to Establish Acquisitive Prescription: Petitioners failed to prove the requirements for acquisitive prescription.
* Ordinary Acquisitive Prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title for ten (10) years.
* Extraordinary Acquisitive Prescription requires uninterrupted adverse possession for thirty (30) years.
The Court found petitioners’ possession was not in the concept of an owner but was merely by tolerance of the respondents and their predecessor, Vicente Torio. Possession by tolerance is not adverse and does not ripen into ownership. Furthermore, any period of possession by tolerance is negated when the owner makes a demand to vacate, as respondents did in 1985. The filing of the complaint in 1996 constituted a civil interruption of possession, which stops the running of the prescriptive period.
4. Authenticity of Deed of Sale: The Court noted that petitioners’ challenge to the due execution and authenticity of the deed of sale from which respondents derived their ownership was a new issue raised only in their petition before the Supreme Court. Issues not raised in the lower courts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Thus, the petitioners did not acquire the land through acquisitive prescription. The Decision of the Court of Appeals reinstating the MTC judgment in favor of the respondents was upheld.
