GR 57092; (January, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 57092 January 21, 1993
EDGARDO DE JESUS, REMEDIOS DE JESUS, JUANITO DE JESUS, JULIANA DE JESUS, JOSE DE JESUS, FLORDELIZA DE JESUS, REYNALDO DE JESUS, ERNESTO DE JESUS, PRISCILO DE JESUS, CORAZON DE JESUS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PRIMITIVA FELIPE DE JESUS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, heirs of Santiago de Jesus, filed an action for recovery of ownership, possession, and quieting of title over a residential lot in Pulilan, Bulacan. They claimed ownership by hereditary succession from their grandfather, Santiago de Jesus. The only documentary evidence supporting their claim was Tax Declaration No. 2384 in the name of Victoriano Felipe, which stated the house was built on a lot belonging to Santiago de Jesus, supported by testimonial evidence.
Private respondent, Primitiva Felipe de Jesus, claimed ownership through her parents, Victoriano Felipe and Guillerma de la Cruz, who allegedly purchased the land from the heirs of Catalino Esguerra via a notarized “Kasulatang-Biling-Mabibiling-Muli” (sale with right to repurchase) dated November 25, 1932. The vendors-a-retro failed to repurchase. Private respondent executed a sworn affidavit of adjudication in 1961 declaring herself the sole heir of Victoriano Felipe. She and her parents had possessed the land since 1932.
The trial court ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring them the owners by hereditary succession and ordering private respondent to surrender possession. The Court of Appeals reversed, dismissed the complaint, and declared private respondent the absolute owner entitled to possession.
ISSUE
Who has the right to the ownership and possession of the residential lot: petitioners by virtue of hereditary succession, or private respondent who claims ownership through purchase by her parents?
RULING
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision, declaring petitioners as having the better right to ownership and possession by hereditary succession and ordering private respondent to surrender the property.
The Court held that private respondent failed to prove the identity of the land described in the “Kasulatang-Biling-Mabibiling-Muli” as the same land claimed by petitioners. The tax declaration number (No. 5096) specified in the deed could not be produced and was shown to refer to a lot owned by another person (Teodoro Sinson). Other tax declarations in the name of Catalino Esguerra produced by petitioners did not match the lot in question. The description in the deed was vague and insufficient to identify the property.
Furthermore, private respondent’s claim of acquisitive prescription failed. Her possession, even if reckoned from the 1961 affidavit of adjudication, was not for the required period. Under the New Civil Code, acquisitive prescription requires thirty years for possession in bad faith. The filing of the petition in 1973 interrupted any prescriptive period, which commenced at the earliest in 1974 when private respondent secured a tax declaration in her name, making the period far too short.