G.R. No. L-4226; April 28, 1952
VALERIANA SUDECO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ALEJO SANDE, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

In 1946, Valeriana Sudeco and her husband Gregorio Moreno filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Misamis. They alleged ownership of a parcel of land in Sibasi, Misamis, and claimed that in 1935, defendant Alejo Sande unlawfully took possession of the land through threat, force, and intimidation, excluding them from its enjoyment and refusing to return it despite demands. They prayed for the return of the land and damages. The defendant was declared in default for failing to answer, and plaintiffs presented their evidence. This evidence consisted of testimony from Atty. Jose Bernad, who identified a deed of sale he prepared between Jose Guinto and Valeriana Sudeco (though the document was not formally offered in evidence), and from plaintiff Valeriana Sudeco, who testified she acquired the land by purchase from Jose Guinto, that it was usurped by Sande in 1935, and that her yearly share of the land’s products was about P200. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the defendant had acquired ownership by acquisitive prescription, which the law provides is not interrupted by war. Plaintiffs appealed, assigning as error the court’s dismissal on the ground that war does not interrupt the statute of limitations.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of acquisitive prescription.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the action. First, the appellants’ assignment of error was misplaced, as it confused acquisitive prescription (which vests title based on possession) with the prescription of actions (statute of limitations, which bars suits). The lower court applied acquisitive prescription under Section 41 of Act No. 190 , which is not interrupted by failure to occupy or cultivate land solely due to war. Second, and more fundamentally, the plaintiffs failed to prove their case. They did not present evidence that their vendor, Jose Guinto, had title to the land. Furthermore, there was a marked discrepancy between the boundaries of the land described in the complaint and the boundaries of the land purchased from Guinto as testified to by Valeriana Sudeco, casting doubt on whether they were the same property. Thus, the appellants not only failed to show a reversible error but also failed to establish their cause of action. The decision was affirmed with costs.