G.R. No. L-20682 May 19, 1966
GREGORIO VILLARTA, GLICERIO VILLARTA and MARINA VILLARTA, plaintiffs and appellants, vs. FAUSTA CUTAMORA VDA. DE CUYNO, BASILIDES, PAZ, MAXIMA, ENRIQUIETA, IRENEO and CATALINO, all surnamed CUYNO, PATERNO JAVELLANA and TEODORO CUTAMORA, defendants and appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, Gregorio Villarta and his children Glicerio and Marina, sought to establish title to and recover possession of a 15-hectare land in Ubay, Bohol, originally owned by Isidoro Cuyno. For failure of Isidoro’s heirs to pay real estate taxes, the bulk of the land (14.8400 hectares) was forfeited to the government in 1936. Gregorio Villarta, whose wife Guardicisima Cuyno was a granddaughter of Isidoro, paid the delinquent taxes from 1936 to 1937 at the request of Marciano Cuyno, one of Isidoro’s sons. Gregorio later secured a tax declaration in his name for that portion in 1946 and also purchased a small separate portion (0.3100 hectares) from a prior assignee of Isidoro. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants, who are heirs of Marciano Cuyno, forcibly deprived them of possession in 1953. The defendants denied the plaintiffs’ ownership and asserted title as heirs, also pleading prescription. The Court of First Instance of Bohol declared Gregorio Villarta owner only of the 0.3100-hectare portion and dismissed the action regarding the rest for lack of indispensable parties (the other heirs of Isidoro Cuyno), prompting the plaintiffs’ appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiffs have validly acquired ownership over the disputed land through payment of delinquent taxes, alleged purchases, or acquisitive prescription.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. It held that Gregorio Villarta did not acquire ownership through payment of the delinquent taxes. The payment merely subrogated him to the government’s rights as a creditor for the taxes and did not constitute a purchase of the land; the receipts were issued in Isidoro Cuyno’s name, indicating Gregorio acted for Isidoro’s benefit, making him a trustee for Isidoro’s heirs. The alleged sales from other parties (Embradura and Gaviola) did not convey ownership as the vendors were not owners but alleged mortgagees, and the properties described did not match the land in question. Acquisitive prescription was not established because Gregorio’s possession, if any, was in trust for Isidoro’s heirs, was interrupted by the filing of a related case in 1948, and was allegedly lost in 1953, before the required period elapsed. The lower court correctly refrained from adjudicating the larger portion because most of Isidoro Cuyno’s heirs were not parties to the case. The land belongs to the heirs of Isidoro Cuyno, without prejudice to Gregorio Villarta’s right to recover the tax payments he made.