G.R. No. 26095 , March 2, 1927
RAFAEL SANTOS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PEDRO DE LA VIÑA, defendant-appellee.

ROSARIO AMANCIO, ET AL., intervenors.

FACTS

Rafael Santos filed an action to recover ownership and possession of three parcels of land (consolidated as the Hacienda “Manuel” or “Dulungan”) in Capiz, and to claim damages from Pedro de la Viña. Santos traced his title back to purchases made in the 1890s by Alvaro Alcantara de Santos and his son from the original owners. This property passed through several conveyances, ultimately being sold to Santos in 1924. De la Viña claimed ownership through various deeds executed in the early 1920s, deriving title from persons who allegedly possessed the land adversely to Santos’s predecessors. An official survey plan (Exhibit 18) from October 1914 showed that certain lots within the hacienda were then claimed by persons from whom De la Viña later derived his title. The trial court absolved De la Viña from the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant, Pedro de la Viña, has acquired ownership by prescription over the disputed parcels of land.

RULING

PARTIALLY AFFIRMED and PARTIALLY REVERSED. The Supreme Court ruled that:
1. For the seven specific parcels (Lots 1-a, 1-c, 1-d, 1-h, 1-i, 2-a, and 2-b as per Exhibit 18), the evidence showed that the defendant’s predecessors had been in adverse possession for more than ten years prior to the suit. Therefore, prescription had run in favor of the defendant as to these lots. The trial court’s dismissal of the complaint regarding these parcels was affirmed.
2. For the remaining areas (Lot 2-c, the part of Lot 2 north of 2-c, and parts of Lot 1 claimed under title from Claudio Buendia), the defendant failed to prove adverse possession for the prescriptive period. The 1914 survey did not show Claudio Buendia as a claimant, and oral testimony did not establish his occupation. Thus, prescription did not run against the plaintiff’s title for these portions.
3. Consequently, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, Rafael Santos, to recover these specific portions not acquired by the defendant through prescription.

The dispositive portion ordered the recovery by Santos of Lot 2-c, the part of Lot 2 north of 2-c, and all parts of Lot 1 adversely held by De la Viña excluding the seven lots mentioned above. No costs were awarded.