G.R. No. L-20090 December 29, 1975
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. MARTINA ABANTAO, ET AL., claimants, NARCISA ROSALES, ET AL., claimants-appellants, LORENZO F. CINCO, ET AL., claimants-appellees.

FACTS

Lots 378 and 1885 of the Catbalogan Cadastre were originally owned by Juanson Rosales. Upon his death, they were declared for taxation in the name of his heir, Angel Rosales. Due to delinquency in tax payments for 1908, the properties were forfeited to the Government on April 25, 1910. Twelve years later, on June 17, 1922, Silvina Borja, a co-heir of Juanson Rosales, applied to the Director of Lands to repurchase the lots. Her application was approved, and she paid the back taxes and penalties, after which ownership was transferred to her.
In the subsequent cadastral proceedings, Silvina Borja and her spouse claimed ownership of the lots by purchase from the government. Other heirs of Juanson Rosales, including Narcisa Rosales, filed answers claiming co-ownership by inheritance. The cadastral court adjudicated the lots to Silvina Borja. The other claimants appealed, contending that her repurchase inured to the benefit of all co-heirs.

ISSUE

Whether the repurchase of the forfeited lots by Silvina Borja from the government inured to the benefit of her co-heirs.

RULING

No, the repurchase did not inure to the benefit of her co-heirs. The Court examined Silvina Borja’s application, which explicitly requested to redeem “my property” and to pay the delinquent taxes for her own benefit. While she identified herself as “one of the legal heirs,” this was merely descriptive and did not indicate an intent to act for or include the other heirs in the repurchase. The transaction was personal and exclusive to her.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that Silvina Borja acquired ownership not only through the purchase but also by acquisitive prescription. The government’s possession from the 1910 forfeiture until the 1922 sale was tacked to her own subsequent possession. She possessed the lots openly and adversely as owner from 1922 until the cadastral claim of the other heirs in 1932, and thereafter for a total period sufficient to vest title by prescription. Thus, her ownership was exclusive and properly adjudicated by the lower court. The decision was affirmed.