G.R. No. 231062 , November 25, 2020
Jorge De Ocampo, Heirs of the Late Napoleon De Ocampo, namely: Rosario De Ocampo, Jose De Ocampo, Pablo De Ocampo, Jaime De Ocampo, Pedrito De Ocampo, Joseph De Ocampo, Napoleon De Ocampo, Jr., Norma De Ocampo, Purita De Ocampo, Florence De Ocampo, Corazon De Ocampo, and Rosemarie De Ocampo, Petitioners, vs. Jose Ollero, Genoveva Ollero, and Concepcion Ollero-Gueco, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a parcel of land in Tubao, La Union, originally owned by Francisco Alban. On November 10, 1930, Francisco donated the property to his adopted daughter, Susana Felipa Carmen de Ocampo (Carmen). Carmen later married and had children, the respondents Jose, Genoveva, and Concepcion Ollero. Carmen allowed her brother, Napoleon De Ocampo, and his wife Rosario to occupy the land in 1944, where they built their home. Carmen and her children resided elsewhere, with some eventually migrating to the United States.
On May 22, 1997, after Carmen’s death in 1998, Napoleon executed an Affidavit of Adjudication claiming he was the sole legal heir of the original owner, Francisco Alban, and appropriated the property to himself. A new tax declaration was issued in the names of Napoleon and his brother, Jorge De Ocampo. Petitioners (the heirs of Napoleon and Jorge) also relied on a Deed of Conveyance dated December 11, 1984, purportedly executed by Carmen in favor of Napoleon and Rosario, which they claimed was a sale for US$1,000.
Respondents filed a case for recovery of ownership, reconveyance, and damages, arguing they were deprived of their inheritance. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of respondents, declaring Napoleon’s Affidavit of Adjudication void and ordering petitioners to pay damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision but deleted the finding of usufruct.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Deed of Conveyance executed by Carmen was a valid contract of sale or a donation.
2. Whether petitioners acquired ownership over the subject property through acquisitive prescription or just title.
3. Whether the award of damages to respondents was proper.
4. Whether petitioners are entitled to rights as builders in good faith for improvements on the land.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
1. On the Deed of Conveyance: The Court held that the purported Deed of Conveyance was not a valid contract of sale. A contract of sale requires a price certain in money or its equivalent. The document merely stated it was executed “for a valuable consideration” without specifying the price. Furthermore, it lacked essential formalities for a donation, such as acceptance by the donee and attestation by witnesses. Therefore, it produced no legal effect.
2. On Ownership and Prescription: Petitioners did not acquire ownership. Napoleon’s Affidavit of Adjudication was void because he claimed inheritance from Francisco Alban, who was no longer the owner since he had already donated the property to Carmen in 1930. Petitioners’ possession since 1944 was merely by tolerance of the owner, Carmen. Possession by tolerance does not constitute adverse possession that can ripen into ownership by acquisitive prescription. Petitioners failed to prove just title or adverse possession in good faith for the required period.
3. On the Award of Damages: The award of moral damages and attorney’s fees was upheld. Napoleon’s execution of a false Affidavit of Adjudication, which was perjurious, warranted the award of moral damages for the mental anguish caused to respondents. Attorney’s fees were also properly awarded as petitioners’ act compelled respondents to litigate.
4. On Builders in Good Faith: The Court found no merit in petitioners’ claim for rights under Article 448 of the Civil Code (builders in good faith). Their occupation was based on Carmen’s mere permission, and they built improvements knowing they were not the owners. The lower courts’ factual findings on this matter are final and conclusive.