G.R. No. 24863; August 5, 1926
LEON RAZOTE, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. JUAN RAZOTE (alias BANDONG), NORBERTO RAPATALO, GREGORIO RAPATALO, and EUGENIA DE FRANCIA, defendant-appellees.

OSTRAND, J.:

FACTS

The plaintiffs, Leon Razote et al., filed an action for partition of a parcel of land, claiming they inherited a four-fifths interest from their father, Juan Razote. The original complaint (September 30, 1920) named as defendants Juan Razote (their brother) and Norberto Rapatalo. Norberto’s answer alleged he purchased the land from Juan in 1913. Later, Norberto amended his answer to state that he had donated the land *propter nuptias* to his son Gregorio Rapatalo in 1915 upon Gregorio’s marriage to Eugenia de Francia. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (December 1923) including Gregorio and Eugenia as defendants.

The parties stipulated key facts: (1) Juan Razote sold the land to Norberto on June 9, 1913, and Norberto possessed it until 1915; (2) On March 26, 1915, Norberto donated the land to Gregorio, who possessed it from then until the trial; (3) The original complaint was filed in 1920, and the amended complaint adding Gregorio was filed in December 1923.

The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, denying partition. The plaintiffs appealed.

ISSUE

Whether Gregorio Rapatalo acquired title to the land by prescription (ordinary acquisitive prescription of ten years).

RULING

YES, Gregorio Rapatalo acquired title by ordinary acquisitive prescription.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that Gregorio, through tacking his possession to that of his predecessor-in-interest (his father Norberto), had completed the required ten years of adverse possession by the time he was made a party to the suit in December 1923.

1. Tacking of Possession is Allowed: Under Section 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the governing law on prescription at the time), the adverse possession of a predecessor may be tacked to that of a successor if there is privity between them. The conveyance by donation from Norberto to Gregorio established such privity. The few exceptions to this universal rule do not exist under Philippine law.

2. Character of Possession: The possession of both Norberto (1913-1915) and Gregorio (1915-1923) was actual, open, public, continuous, and under a claim of title (by virtue of a deed of sale and a deed of donation, respectively), which meets all the requirements for ordinary acquisitive prescription under Section 41.

3. Action Against Norberto Did Not Interrupt Gregorio’s Prescription: The filing of the original complaint against Norberto in 1920 did not interrupt the running of the prescriptive period for Gregorio. Once Norberto donated the land in 1915, Gregorio’s possession was adverse to everyone, including his father. An action against a stranger to the possession (Norberto, who no longer had any interest) does not affect the prescription running in favor of the actual possessor (Gregorio). The plaintiffs had the duty to ascertain the proper party in interest.

Therefore, Gregorio acquired a “full and complete title” through ten years of adverse possession, and the action for partition could no longer prosper. The judgment absolving the defendants was affirmed.

DISSENTING OPINION: Justice Johns dissented without stating reasons.