G.R. No. L-28337 September 30, 1970
RUFINO ALVERO, PEDRO ALVERO, FORTUNATA ALVERO-RAMIREZ and EUSTAQUIO BAYOT, petitioners, vs. MARIANO REAS and PAULA VDA. DE ALVERO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners commenced a suit to quiet title to, recover possession of, and collect damages for a parcel of land in Leyte, claiming ownership as successors of Alejandra Alvero, who allegedly acquired the land from Cipriana Alvero by succession and purchase of co-heirs’ shares. Respondents also claimed title from Cipriana Alvero, asserting that four heirs, including petitioner Rufino Alvero and respondent Mariano Reas, verbally partitioned the land in 1938 and ratified this partition in writing in 1949, with each possessing their share exclusively thereafter, and further pleaded title by adverse possession. The Court of First Instance ruled for petitioners, relying on a 1937 Court of Land Registration decision in favor of Cipriana Alvero and the subsequent sales to Alejandra Alvero. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the 1937 land registration decision was not entered or transcribed as required by law, no decree or certificate of title was issued, and thus it did not make the title indefeasible or imprescriptible. The appellate court found that respondents had been in actual, open, public, continuous, and exclusive possession of the land under a claim of ownership for over ten years before the suit was filed in 1960, thereby acquiring ownership by acquisitive prescription. It noted that an extrajudicial partition was executed in 1949, with petitioner Rufino Alvero as a signatory, and that petitioners Eustaquio Bayot and Fortunata Alvero-Ramirez did not exercise possession over their supposed shares.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents acquired ownership of the disputed land by acquisitive prescription.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The findings of fact by the Court of Appeals—that respondents had been in actual, open, public, continuous, and exclusive possession of the land under a claim of ownership since at least 1949, while petitioners never had possession—are binding on the Supreme Court, which is limited to reviewing errors of law. Applying Section 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Act No. 190 ), the applicable law on prescription, the Court held that ten years of actual adverse possession vests a full and complete title, regardless of how the occupancy commenced. The Court found that the requisites for acquisitive prescription were met, as respondents’ possession exceeded ten years before the suit was filed. The Court also upheld the appellate court’s finding that respondent Mariano Reas had repudiated any alleged administrative capacity over the land and held it adversely. The extrajudicial partition of 1949, admitted in the complaint and signed by petitioner Rufino Alvero, supported the claim of adverse possession. The petition for certiorari was denied, and the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution were affirmed.