G.R. No. L‑3571
October 3, 1907

FACTS
– Plaintiffs (Valentin Lacuesta et al.) filed an ejectment action in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte (Jan 14 1905) to recover several parcels of land they claimed were owned by their great‑grandfather (1797 deed) and later by their grandfather, Hipólito Esteban.
– Defendants (Paterno Guerrero, Mariano Guerrero, Enrique Inovejas, Doroteo Inés, Placida Ibañez) traced possession of the lands continuously from 1833 onward.
– The plaintiffs alleged that the three Guerrero‑Inovejas defendants were merely tenants of the plaintiffs’ ancestors; the remaining two defendants were contested on the basis of a 1877 court order that temporarily placed the plaintiffs in possession of the lands.
– The 1877 order was provisional, directing the local gobernadorcillo to give the plaintiffs possession “without prejudice to the result of the suit.” The plaintiffs acted as receivers only until the order was set aside in 1888, after which the defendants regained possession.
– The original action filed by Hipólito Esteban in 1833 was abandoned; subsequent proceedings (last regular judicial act = Sept 25 1895; final irregular act = Nov 23 1899) were likewise abandoned.

ISSUE
Whether the temporary possession granted to the plaintiffs by the 1877 court ordersubsequently rescindedinterrupted the running of the statutory period for acquisition of title by prescription in favor of the defendants, thereby barring the plaintiffs’ ejectment claim.

RULING
– The 1877 order was merely a provisional, remedial measure within the pending lawsuit; it did not constitute a voluntary relinquishment of possession by the defendants nor an independent act of possession by the plaintiffs.
– Under Art. 1946 of the Civil Code, an abandoned or dismissed suit is deemed never to have been filed for purposes of the prescription period. Consequently, the defendants’ continuous possession from 1833 was uninterrupted.
– The temporary possession of the plaintiffs (circa 1877‑1888) did not interrupt the statute of limitations; the defendants’ adverse possession continued for more than seventy (70) years, exceeding the period required for acquisitive prescription.
– No action to recover the lands may succeed against a holder of adverse possession exceeding the statutory period.

Disposition The judgment of the lower court in favor of the defendants is AFFIRMED. Costs of this instance are imposed on the appellants.

Concurred in by Chief Justice Arellano and Justices Torres, Johnson, and Tracey.