G.R. No. 28394, October 22, 1928
ENGRACIO L. VALMONTE, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. PEDRO VILLAROMAN, ET AL., defendants. PEDRO VILLAROMAN, appellant.

FACTS

Buenaventura Valmonte and his first wife, Julia Mariano, had three sons: Marcelino, Doroteo, and Manuel. After Julia’s death, Buenaventura married Celestina Marin, with whom he had four children: Dominga, Ignacia, Hipolito, and Maria. Upon Buenaventura’s death in 1909, his estate included a parcel of land. In 1914, Manuel Valmonte (a son from the first marriage) and some heirs from the second marriage sold this land to Pedro Villaroman. Not all heirs participated in the sale, including the children of the predeceased Doroteo (plaintiffs Engracio, Donata, and Esperanza Valmonte) and the son of the predeceased Marcelino (Ambrosio Advincula, who was absent in America). Villaroman took possession of the land, declared it for taxation, and later obtained a decree of registration and a certificate of title under the Land Registration Act. The non-selling heirs later filed an action for partition of the land and an accounting of its fruits.

ISSUE

1. Whether Pedro Villaroman acquired ownership of the land by acquisitive prescription.
2. Whether the certificate of title issued to Villaroman under the Land Registration Act is conclusive and bars an action for partition.

RULING

1. YES, Villaroman acquired the land by acquisitive prescription. He entered into possession of the land openly, continuously, adversely, and in the concept of an owner from July 15, 1914. His possession was not interrupted. Under Act No. 190 (the Code of Civil Procedure), ten years of such adverse possession confers title by prescription. By July 15, 1924, Villaroman had acquired ownership through prescription. The claim of the absent heir, Ambrosio Advincula, was extinguished by prescription before his presumed death, and thus his heirs acquired no right of action.

2. YES, the certificate of title is conclusive and bars the action. Villaroman obtained a decree of registration on May 20, 1926, and the corresponding certificate of title was issued thereafter. The decree was not procured by fraud, and neither absence nor minority of a claimant is a ground for its revision under Section 38 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act). The notice of *lis pendens* filed by the plaintiffs in 1925 did not affect the registration proceedings, as it was recorded after Villaroman had already applied for registration and did not relieve the plaintiffs of their duty to oppose his application.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the trial court is REVERSED. Defendant-appellant Pedro Villaroman is ABSOLVED from the complaint, which is DISMISSED. Costs against the appellees.