G.R. No. L-17299; July 31, 1963
JOSEFINA POTESTAS CABRERA and CRESENCIA POTESTAS OMULON, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. MARIANO T. TIANO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Ciriaco Potestas and his wife Gregoria Blanco owned an agricultural land. Upon Gregoria’s death, the property was left to Ciriaco and their children: Isabelo, Lourdes, Clemente (who also died), Josefina, and Cresencia. On July 2, 1947, Ciriaco, together with Isabelo, Lourdes, and the minor Cresencia, sold the land to Mariano T. Tiano for P3,500. Josefina, who was of legal age, did not sign the deed and was unaware of the sale.
On June 20, 1957, Josefina and Cresencia filed an action for partition and recovery of their shares in the property, alleging the sale was invalid as to them since Josefina did not consent and Cresencia was a minor. They sought damages for their share of the produce. Tiano defended his ownership, claiming the plaintiffs knew of the sale and that he had acquired the land by acquisitive prescription of ten years from the date of purchase. The parties stipulated that Cresencia was a minor at the time of sale and Josefina did not know or consent to it.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the action filed by Josefina and Cresencia to recover their shares had already prescribed, and whether Tiano had acquired ownership through acquisitive prescription.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. On the matter of prescription of action, the Court held that the ten-year period to file the action commenced from the date of the sale on July 2, 1947. The filing of the complaint on June 20, 1957, interrupted the running of the prescriptive period, even though the summons was served on Tiano on July 2, 1957. Under established jurisprudence, a civil action is deemed commenced upon the filing of the complaint with the court, not upon service of summons. Therefore, the action was timely filed before the prescriptive period lapsed.
Regarding acquisitive prescription, the Court rejected Tiano’s claim. Acquisitive prescription requires possession that is in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted, and in good faith with just title. These are factual requisites that must be proven. The trial court made no factual findings on the presence of these elements, and Tiano, by appealing directly to the Supreme Court on purely legal questions, was deemed to have waived any factual issues. Consequently, his defense of acquisitive prescription failed. Moreover, even counting from the sale date, the ten-year period for acquisitive prescription would have ended on July 2, 1957, the very day he received the summons interrupting his possession. The award of damages was also sustained, as the plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the produce from their rightful portion of the land.