G.R. No. L-60443 February 29, 1988
CONSTANTINO ALVAREZ, JR., CASILDITA ALVAREZ DE MUERTEGUI, and ROSALIA ALVAREZ Vda. de TAN, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and HEIRS OF SEGUNDO GARCIA FERNANDEZ, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves Lot No. 689 in the Ormoc Cadastre. In 1936, cadastral proceedings were initiated. After no claims were filed despite notice, the court issued an order of general default and dismissed the proceeding regarding the lot in 1942. In 1956, petitioners Constantino Alvarez, Jr., et al., filed a motion to reopen, initially claiming ownership by inheritance from the spouses Segundo Garcia Fernandez and Eulogia Alvarez. The cadastral court granted the motion. The respondents, the Heirs of Segundo Garcia Fernandez (the Fernandez Children), filed their answer. After the Fernandez Children failed to appear at a scheduled hearing, the court allowed ex parte presentation of evidence by Alvarez, Jr., et al., who then shifted their claim, asserting ownership through a prior purchase by their father, Constantino Alvarez, Sr., from the spouses. The court adjudicated the lot to the petitioners in 1958.
The Fernandez Children filed a petition for review, alleging fraud due to the contradictory basis of the petitioners’ claim. The Cadastral Court denied the petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. After trial, the Cadastral Court again ruled for Alvarez, Jr., et al., citing laches and acquisitive prescription. The Fernandez Children appealed again to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Cadastral Court, adjudicating the lot to the Fernandez Children. It found the petitioners’ claim of purchase contradictory and unsupported, and ruled that their possession was not in the concept of an owner but as mere administrators, thus negating prescription.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in adjudicating Lot No. 689 to the respondents, the Heirs of Segundo Garcia Fernandez, and in rejecting the petitioners’ claim of ownership by acquisitive prescription.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the infirmity of the petitioners’ claim and the nature of their possession. The Court upheld the Appellate Court’s finding that the petitioners’ claim of ownership was grievously flawed by fatal contradictions. They initially asserted direct inheritance from the Fernandez spouses, then pivoted to a theory of purchase by their father, and later testified it was purchased by another relative. This inconsistency, coupled with the absence of any documentary proof of sale, rendered their claim untenable. On the crucial matter of prescription, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the petitioners’ possession was not adverse. The tax declarations filed by Constantino Alvarez, Jr., himself indicated he was merely the administrator of the property, with Segundo Garcia Fernandez declared as the owner. Possession by an administrator is not in the concept of an owner and is not adverse to the true owner; therefore, it cannot ripen into ownership by acquisitive prescription. Their claim of adverse possession could only be considered to have commenced upon the filing of their motion to reopen in 1956, which is insufficient for the required prescriptive period. The Court also found no merit in the petitioners’ new argument regarding res judicata, noting it was raised too late and was inapplicable.