G.R. No. L-3712
CANDIDO CONCEPCION, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. THE CITY OF MANILA, respondent-appellee.
November 4, 1908

FACTS:
Candido, Narcisa, and Felix Concepcion, along with their grantees A.D. Gibbs and H.D. Gale (collectively, “applicants”), applied to register a parcel of land in Arroceros, Ermita, Manila (lot 7 in block 6). The applicants inherited the property from Don Prudencio R. Concepcion. The application was opposed only by the City of Manila.

The City of Manila presented Spanish documents (royal cedulas from 1604, 1686, 1762, and a royal auto of the Audiencia from 1780) to prove its original title to lands in Arroceros. The Court found these documents largely inconclusive regarding the specific property in question, noting that the city’s claim to the land had been questioned by the military branch of the government without a final determination in its favor, and the documents did not definitively identify the barrios or the property. While the City showed it collected rents in the general area, it never collected rent from the specific lot in question. The City had, however, caused the parcel to be included in a tract inscribed under the Mortgage Laws in its name on June 15, 1902.

The applicants proved a “summary information” in favor of their father, Prudencio Concepcion, presented in November 1872 and completed in February 1873. They claimed continuous possession from that time until the city ousted them in April 1902, during which they lived on or collected rents from the property and paid taxes. Prudencio Concepcion was born on the property in 1803, and his forefathers had occupied it “since time immemorial.” They had built two houses and collected rents from tenants who knew no other landlords. Their names and their tenants’ names did not appear on the city’s books as having paid rent or acknowledged city ownership. Their occupation had defined and permanent boundaries, and no license from the Ayuntamiento was obtained.

The Court of Land Registration denied the application.

ISSUE:
Did the applicants and their predecessors acquire title to the land through extraordinary prescription of thirty years against the City of Manila, notwithstanding the City’s claim of prior title and subsequent inscription under the Mortgage Laws?

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Land Registration and ordered the property inscribed in the name of the applicants.

The Court held that while the “summary information” itself did not establish title and the period of possession after it (approximately 29 years until ouster) was insufficient for the thirty-year extraordinary prescription, the character of the occupation prior to the summary information was crucial.

The Court found that the factsPrudencio Concepcion being born on the property in 1803, its occupation by his forefathers “since time immemorial,” the building of houses, collection of rents, payment of taxes, lack of acknowledgment of the city’s ownership, and defined boundariescollectively demonstrated an occupation under a continuous claim of ownership sufficient to establish title through extraordinary prescription of thirty years as against the City of Manila.

The Spanish documents presented by the City were deemed insufficient to establish its specific title to the property, and the City’s 1902 inscription under the Mortgage Laws was considered unduly granted in fraud of the applicants’ established rights. The Court therefore ordered the cancellation of the relevant part of the city’s prior registration and the inscription of the property in the applicants’ names.