G.R. No. L-4641, March 13, 1911
THE SEMINARY OF SAN CARLOS vs. THE MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU

FACTS

The Seminary of San Carlos petitioned for the registration of two parcels of land in Cebu City, claiming ownership through a royal cession from the King of Spain. The Municipality of Cebu opposed, asserting ownership by acquisitive prescription and contending that the land did not include any portion of the public plaza. The trial court ruled in favor of the Seminary, ordering registration in its name. The Municipality appealed, arguing that the decision was against the evidence and contrary to law.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Seminary has legal title to the land in dispute.
2. Whether the Municipality has acquired ownership by prescription.
3. Whether the Municipality has a right to possess and use the land for public purposes.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s judgment.
1. On Title: The Seminary established its legal title through documentary evidence (Exhibits E and F), which described the land and traced its origin to a royal cession. The Court found that the land described in these documents included the disputed area.
2. On Prescription: The Municipality’s claim of ownership by prescription failed. A key document (Exhibit K) showed that the Seminary had permitted the Municipality to use the land as a public promenade. This permissive possession, acknowledged by the Municipality’s own officials, negated any claim of adverse possession required for prescription.
3. On Right to Use: Although the Seminary retained legal title, Exhibit K created an enforceable obligation allowing the Municipality to possess and use the land as a public promenade for as long as it served that purpose. This was based on a legal consideration and had been recognized by both parties over time.

DISPOSITIVE:
The land was ordered registered in the name of the Seminary of San Carlos, subject to the right of the Municipality of Cebu to possess, occupy, and use it as a public promenade for as long as it is dedicated to that use. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed as modified.