G.R. No. 28896, October 10, 1928
JOSE ATIENZA, petitioner-appellee, vs. DOMINGA MANALOTO, ET AL., opponents-appellants.

FACTS

Jose Atienza applied for the registration of four parcels of land, claiming ownership by inheritance from his mother, Paula Medina, and alleging open, continuous, and exclusive possession for over sixty years. The Director of Lands and private oppositors (descendants of Juana Medina, Paula’s mother) initially opposed. The Director of Lands and private oppositors later withdrew their opposition to two parcels (Plan Psu-31551). The remaining opposition, limited to two parcels (Plan Psu-31380), was based on the claim that these lands were originally owned by Juana Medina and passed to her daughters Paula Medina and Juliana Sumira, making the lands co-owned by Atienza and the oppositors (descendants of Juliana). The trial court dismissed the opposition, finding Atienza had proven exclusive ownership and acquisitive prescription, and ordered the registration of all four parcels in his name. The oppositors appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in its factual findings that Jose Atienza had exclusive ownership of the two disputed parcels, rather than holding them to be co-owned with the oppositors.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appeal raised purely factual questions regarding the appreciation of evidence. The trial court found, based on the evidence, that the lands were acquired by Paula Medina (Atienza’s mother) and later inherited exclusively by Atienza, who possessed them openly and exclusively for the prescriptive period. The oppositors’ evidence, which included claims of minimal shared harvests, was deemed insufficient and unpersuasive by the trial court. Following settled jurisprudence, the Supreme Court will not disturb the factual findings of the trial court when supported by the evidence and the appellants fail to demonstrate any overlooked material fact. The ownership and registrable title of Jose Atienza were upheld.