G.R. No. 187451; August 29, 2012
JESUS VIRTUCIO, represented by ABDON VIRTUCIO, Petitioner, vs. JOSE ALEGARBES, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Jose Alegarbes filed a homestead application in 1949 for a 24-hectare land in Basilan, approved in 1952. In 1955, a public land subdivision allocated portions of this land to others, with Lot 140 awarded to petitioner Jesus Virtucio. Alegarbes protested this allocation. The Director of Lands, in a 1961 decision, denied Alegarbes’ protest and amended his application to exclude Lot 140, giving due course to Virtucio’s application. This administrative decision was affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in 1967 and the Office of the President in 1974, becoming final and executory. An order of execution was issued in 1989, but Alegarbes refused to vacate. Virtucio subsequently filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership in 1997.
In defense, Alegarbes claimed the administrative decisions were void and argued he had acquired ownership of Lot 140 through acquisitive prescription, having possessed it openly, continuously, and in the concept of an owner for over 30 years. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Virtucio, ordering Alegarbes to vacate. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, declaring Alegarbes the owner by virtue of acquisitive prescription, ruling that his long-term possession could segregate the land from the public domain irrespective of the final administrative awards.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether respondent Jose Alegarbes acquired ownership over Lot 140 through acquisitive prescription despite the final and executory administrative decisions awarding the homestead to petitioner Jesus Virtucio.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC decision, ruling that Alegarbes could not acquire the land by acquisitive prescription. The Court’s legal logic is anchored on the nature of public agricultural land under a homestead grant. The Court held that acquisitive prescription, whether ordinary or extraordinary, does not run against lands of the public domain. For prescription to commence, the land must already be private or patrimonial property. A homestead application, until a patent is issued and the land is registered, does not convert the land into private property; it remains part of the public domain. Therefore, Alegarbes’ possession, no matter how long, could not ripen into ownership through prescription while the land was still classified as public agricultural land.
The Court emphasized that the administrative proceedings, which culminated in a final decision by the Office of the President awarding the land to Virtucio, conclusively settled the right to a homestead grant over Lot 140. This final judgment could no longer be collaterally attacked by a claim of prescription. Alegarbes’ continued possession after the final administrative award was merely that of a possessor in bad faith, which cannot form the basis for acquisitive prescription. Consequently, Virtucio, as the grantee of a valid and final homestead award, is entitled to possession and ownership. The awards for attorney’s fees and litigation costs were also reinstated as Virtucio was compelled to litigate to enforce his rights.