G.R. No. L‑3010

FACTS
– Plaintiffs Julian Tubucon (appellant) and defendant Petrona Dalisay own adjoining parcels.
– Ten years before suit, Dalisay, with Tubucon’s permission, erected a house on land that, according to Tubucon, belongs to him, near the boundary.
– Dalisay contends the house stands on her own land.
– Evidence (including Dalisay’s own testimony) shows she never harvested the coconuts from trees on the disputed plot; Tubucon did.
– Tubucon also seeks ₱30 damages for trees he planted that Dalisay destroyed.
– Lower court found the house on Tubucon’s land but granted judgment to Dalisay on the basis of a ten‑year prescriptive title.

ISSUE
Whether Dalisay acquired title to the disputed land by prescription despite lacking “color of title,” and whether the ten‑year prescription under the 1902 Code of Civil Procedure applies to an action that accrued before its enactment.

RULING
– The prescriptive period applicable is that of the Civil Code, not Section 41 of the 1902 Code of Civil Procedure, because the cause of action had already accrued when the latter took effect (Section 38).
– Under the Civil Code, a prescriptive claim requires possession under color of title; Dalisay failed to prove such title.
– Evidence confirms the house occupies Tubucon’s land and that Dalisay destroyed his trees, causing ₱30 damage.
– The Supreme Court reverses the lower court, remands with instructions to enter judgment for Tubucon for recovery of possession and ₱30 damages, with costs of the first instance. No costs are awarded in the Supreme Court.