GR L 2791; (November, 1906) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑2791
FACTS
– The Municipality of Cavite, represented by its president Catalino Nicolas, filed a petition to have a 193.29‑sqm tract in the Paseo de la Soledad inscribed in its name.
– Maria Jose, Irene Jose and Macario Jose (the petitioners) filed an opposing petition claiming ownership of the same tract and of a second tract where the “Cavite Theater” stood, alleging acquisition by prescription.
– The Court of Land Registration (Case No. 155) ruled that the petitioners owned both tracts by prescription and ordered their inscription in the petitioners’ favor; the municipality’s objection was denied.
– The municipality sought a new trial, which was refused, and appealed by bill of exceptions.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petitioners acquired title to the land under the doctrine of prescription.
2. Whether the municipality may have the land on which the “Kiosko Café” stands registered in its name as a public square.
RULING
– Prescription: The Court held that the petitioners failed to prove a valid claim of prescription. A concession (license) from the politico‑military governor did not constitute “color of title,” and the transmission of the deceased father’s rights to his heirs does not create such color of title under the applicable statutes of limitations. Consequently, the petitioners could not rely on prescription to acquire ownership.
– Public Square: The land occupied by the Kiosko Café is part of the Paseo/Soledad Square, a public street designated for public use. Under Article 344 of the Civil Code, Article 25 of the Mortgage Law regulations, and Act No. 1039 (1904), such public spaces are not bienes patrimoniales of the municipality and cannot be inscribed in its name.
– The Supreme Court therefore reversed the lower court’s order inscribing the parcels in favor of the petitioners and affirmed the denial of the municipality’s petition, holding that the land remains a public thoroughfare not subject to registration. No costs were awarded.
The case was remanded for dismissal of the petitioners’ claim and for entry of judgment accordingly.