GR 47797; (June, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47797; June 20, 1941
JOSEFA LABOT and ZOSIMO MIRANDA, petitioners, vs. EDUVIGES LIBRADA, respondent.
FACTS
Maximino Librada had six children from his first marriage, including respondent Eduviges Librada. In his second marriage to Nicasia Cervantes, they had no children. During the second marriage, the spouses acquired a house and lot. Before his death in 1929, Maximino executed a public instrument on October 6, 1914, conveying his one-half interest in the property to Nicasia. Nicasia later sold the entire property via a public document on February 20, 1922, to spouses Josefa Labot and Potenciano Miranda (petitioners herein; Zosimo Miranda is their son). Nicasia died in 1935. On May 26, 1936, Eduviges Librada filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Laguna to recover the property. The trial court ruled for the defendants (petitioners). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Maximino’s conveyance to Nicasia was a donation of his half-interest, void under Article 1334 of the Civil Code, and thus declared Nicasia’s subsequent sale to the petitioners ineffective as to one-half of the property, awarding one-twelfth to Eduviges. Petitioners sought certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners have acquired title to the property through acquisitive prescription.
RULING
Yes. Regardless of the validity of the donation from Maximino to Nicasia, the uncontroverted facts show that Nicasia sold the property to the petitioners on February 20, 1922, and they have been in possession under a bona fide claim of ownership for over ten years before the complaint was filed on July 21, 1936. The Court of Appeals erred in denying acquisitive prescription on the ground that petitioners’ possession was not exclusive because Nicasia lived with them until her death. The Court held that exclusive possession does not require excluding everyone from the land; concurrent use by another with the claimants’ permission or in subordination to their claim does not negate exclusiveness. By the deed of sale, legal title vested in the grantees (petitioners), and Nicasia’s continued possession was that of a tenant, not an owner, absent an explicit disclaimer and notorious assertion of adverse right. Therefore, petitioners acquired title by acquisitive prescription under Section 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The writ of certiorari is granted, and the Court of Appeals’ decision is reversed.