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, declared the land for taxation, and later obtained a decree of registration and a Torrens title in his name in 1926. The non-selling heirs filed an action for partition and accounting in 1925, claiming the sale did not bind their shares.

ISSUE

1. Whether Pedro Villaroman acquired ownership of the land by acquisitive prescription.
2. Whether the Torrens title issued to Villaroman bars the action for partition.

RULING

1. YES, Villaroman acquired the land by acquisitive prescription. His possession since July 15, 1914, was open, continuous, adverse, and in the concept of an owner. The ten-year prescriptive period under Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure) was completed by July 15, 1924. The plaintiffs’ right of action to recover their shares was extinguished by prescription before they filed suit in 1925. Notably, as to the share of the absent heir Ambrosio Advincula, his right of action prescribed during his lifetime (presumed alive until December 31, 1924), so his heirs acquired no actionable right upon his presumed death.

2. The Torrens title issued to Villaroman is conclusive and bars the partition action. The decree of registration was issued in 1926 without fraud. Under Section 38 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act), a decree cannot be reviewed after one year except on the ground of fraud. Absence or minority of claimants is not a ground for review. The notice of *lis pendens* filed by the plaintiffs in 1925 did not affect the registration decree because Villaroman’s application was filed earlier, and the *lis pendens* only protects against third parties, not against a prior registration proceeding.

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