G.R. No. L-6276, March 21, 1911
TOMAS M. SANTIAGO, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. MARCELA C. CRUZ, ET AL., opponents-appellants.

FACTS

The petitioners, the widow and minor children of Simon Tecson, applied for registration of a parcel of land under the Land Registration Act. They derived their claim from a deed of sale executed by Eduvigis Manikis, the widow of Estanislao C. Cruz, in favor of Simon Tecson in 1896. The land was originally a public land granted by the government to Estanislao C. Cruz in 1886 and became part of the conjugal property (bienes gananciales) of Estanislao and Eduvigis. After Estanislao’s death, his undivided one-half interest in the land passed to his estate. The opponents, claiming to be the sole heirs of Estanislao through his brother Pedro C. Cruz, opposed the registration, asserting ownership over the undivided one-half interest belonging to Estanislao’s estate. The petitioners argued that (1) the opponents were not lawful heirs due to an alleged invalid marriage of Pedro C. Cruz, and (2) even if the opponents were heirs, the petitioners had acquired title by prescription through over ten years of open, continuous possession under a claim of ownership. The trial court ruled that the opponents were lawful heirs and entitled to an undivided one-half interest, ordering registration in favor of both parties accordingly.

ISSUE

1. Whether the opponents are the lawful heirs of Estanislao C. Cruz entitled to his undivided one-half interest in the conjugal property.
2. Whether the petitioners acquired prescriptive title to the entire land through over ten years of possession under a claim of ownership.
3. Whether the trial court properly ordered registration of the land in favor of both the petitioners and opponents.

RULING

1. Yes, the opponents are lawful heirs. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Pedro C. Cruz and Petra were lawfully married, despite the absence of parish records (which were destroyed), based on other satisfactory evidence. Thus, the opponents, as legitimate heirs of Estanislao through Pedro, inherited his undivided one-half interest in the conjugal property.
2. No, prescriptive title was not acquired. For prescription under Article 1950 of the Civil Code, possession must be with “justo titulo y buena fe” (color of title and good faith). The Court found that Simon Tecson, the petitioners’ predecessor, lacked good faith. He knew the land was conjugal, that Eduvigis only owned a one-half interest, and that the other half belonged to Estanislao’s heirs. The deed of sale falsely recited that the government grant was made to Eduvigis alone, concealing the true ownership. Tecson also failed to inquire about the heirs, who lived nearby. Thus, the possession, though over ten years, did not meet the requirement of good faith necessary for prescription.
3. The trial court’s order of registration was improper. Under Section 19 of the Land Registration Act, co-owners claiming undivided shares must apply jointly for registration of the whole fee. The Court, citing Tecson vs. Corporation de los PP. Dominicos, held that the court lacks jurisdiction to decree registration in favor of an opponent in such proceedings. The proper remedy was to dismiss the application without prejudice, allowing all co-owners to file a joint application.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decree and ordered the dismissal of the application without prejudice, with no costs awarded.