G.R. No. L-17249, November 28, 1964
LICOTEDRA PARCOTILO, MARIA PARCOTILO, EPIFANIA PARCOTILO, RAYMUNDO PARCOTILO, CORAZON PARCOTILO, PERPETUA PARCOTILO, ALADINO PARCOTILO, and FRANCISCO PARCOTILO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FILOMENA PARCOTILO, CRISPIN PRIETO, DEMETRIO PARCOTILO, VICTOR PARCOTILO, and VICENTA PARCOTILO BAJI, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

1. Parties and Relationships: The plaintiffs-appellants are nephews and nieces of the late Pablo Parcotilo. The defendants-appellees include: Filomena Parcotilo (sister of Pablo); Demetrio Parcotilo (son of Filomena, hence also a nephew of Pablo); Victor Parcotilo (son of Demetrio); Vicenta Parcotilo Baji (another niece of Pablo); and Crispin Prieto (a buyer of a portion of the land from Demetrio).
2. Subject Properties: The case involves two parcels of unregistered land in Oroquieta, Misamis Occidental, originally owned by the spouses Pablo Parcotilo and Filomena Dipolog (also known as Filomena Botanog).
3. Death of Owners: The spouses Pablo and Filomena died childless in 1918 during a cholera epidemic, leaving no descendants or ascendants.
4. Plaintiffs’ Claim: The plaintiffs, as collateral relatives (children of Pablo’s brothers/sisters), filed an action for partition on January 23, 1956. They claimed to be co-owners of the lands together with defendants Filomena and Vicenta, as legal heirs of Pablo. They alleged that Demetrio fraudulently procured the transfer of tax declarations to his name in 1936 by falsely representing himself as Pablo’s only son and heir, and later sold a portion to Crispin Prieto. They also alleged Victor Parcotilo later had the tax declarations transferred to his name.
5. Defendants’ Defense:
* Demetrio Parcotilo: Claimed ownership by virtue of a “donation mortis causa” (Exhibit “1”) executed by the spouses Pablo and Filomena on July 20, 1917. He asserted that upon their death in 1918, he immediately took possession of the lands, introduced improvements, and possessed them “actually, publicly, and uninterruptedly” under a claim of ownership adverse to all others until the filing of the complaint in 1956.
* Crispin Prieto: Claimed he was a purchaser in good faith in 1936 of a portion of the land from Demetrio, believing Demetrio to be the true owner, and had been in open, continuous possession since then.
* Vicenta Parcotilo Baji: Disclaimed any interest in the properties.
6. Trial Court Ruling: The Court of First Instance of Occidental Misamis dismissed the complaint. It found Exhibit “1” to be null and void for lack of legal requisites. However, it held that Demetrio’s open, adverse, and uninterrupted possession of the lands from 1918 constituted a valid basis for acquisitive prescription. The court concluded the plaintiffs’ action was filed too late, after their rights had already prescribed.

ISSUE

Whether or not the defendants-appellees, particularly Demetrio Parcotilo and Crispin Prieto, have acquired ownership over the subject parcels of land through acquisitive prescription, thereby barring the plaintiffs-appellants’ action for partition.

RULING

YES. The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision, holding that ownership had been acquired through prescription.
1. Prescription as a Mode of Acquiring Ownership: The Court emphasized that ownership and other real rights over property are acquired not only by succession or tradition but also by prescription, either ordinary or extraordinary.
2. Nature of Demetrio’s Possession: The Court found that Demetrio Parcotilo’s possession of the lands from 1918 was actual, open, public, continuous, exclusive, and under a claim of ownership adverse to all other claimants. Key acts demonstrating this adverse claim included:
Taking possession immediately after the spouses’ death in 1918.
Procuring the transfer of tax declarations to his name in 1936.
* Selling a portion of the land to Crispin Prieto in 1936 (with Luis Parcotilo, a plaintiff’s predecessor, merely acting as a witness, implying no assertion of ownership by him).
* Later causing the transfer of tax declarations to his son Victor in 1952.
3. Applicable Law on Prescription: Since the lands were unregistered and the defendants’ rights accrued before the effectivity of the New Civil Code (NCC), the governing law was Section 41 of Act No. 190 (the old Code of Civil Procedure). This provision vested “a full and complete title” after ten years of actual adverse possession meeting the required characteristics.
4. Calculation of Prescriptive Period:
* As to Demetrio Parcotilo: His adverse possession commenced in 1918. The plaintiffs’ action was filed in 1956, well beyond the 10-year period required under Act No. 190 . By 1928, Demetrio had already acquired full ownership by prescription.
* As to Crispin Prieto: His possession of the portion he bought commenced in 1936. By the time the complaint was filed in 1956, he had also been in adverse possession for about 20 years, more than sufficient to acquire title.
5. Benefit of Prior Possession: The Court noted that Crispin Prieto benefited from Demetrio’s prior period of adverse possession (1918-1936) regarding the portion he purchased.
6. Alternative Basis under the New Civil Code: The Court further stated that even under Article 1137 of the NCC on extraordinary prescription, which requires 30 years of uninterrupted adverse possession (regardless of good faith or just title), Demetrio’s possession from 1918 to 1956 (38 years) would have likewise vested ownership in him.
7. Conclusion: The plaintiffs-appellants, despite being potential legal heirs, lost their right to claim the property due to the defendants’ acquisitive prescription. Their action for partition was filed decades too late.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants.