G.R. No. L-8108 ; August 22, 1914
RAMON L. ORTIZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ASUNCION FUENTABELLA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
On August 6, 1892, a possessory information for a 27-hectare pasture land in Tagas, San Jose, Ambos Camarines, was inscribed in the property registry in the name of Ramon Ortiz, based on his possession for over fifteen years. The authenticity of this title was never challenged. In March 1909, Ortiz’s daughter wrote to Asuncion Fuentebella, warning her not to plant coconuts on the said land. Fuentebella replied, denying any such intention. However, on December 29, 1909, Fuentebella purchased the same land from Juan and Sotera Cano, who claimed their late parents had possessed it peacefully for thirty years since 1879. Subsequently, Fuentebella took possession, planted over 5,000 coconut trees, and built a house on the land. Ortiz filed a complaint for restitution of possession and damages. The Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines absolved Fuentebella. Ortiz appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendants, Asuncion Fuentebella and her vendors Juan and Sotera Cano, have a superior right of possession over the land registered in the name of Ramon Ortiz.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision.
1. The possessory information inscribed in 1892 in favor of Ramon Ortiz is an unchallenged and superior evidence of title.

3. Asuncion Fuentebella’s possession is derived solely from the Canos and is therefore inferior to Ortiz’s registered title. Her good faith, however, is recognized only until she received the warning letter from Ortiz’s daughter in March 1909. Acts of possession and improvements made after that date are considered in bad faith.
4. The Court ordered the restoration of possession of the land to Ramon Ortiz. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the exact timeline of Fuentebella’s constructions and plantings, and to adjudicate the respective rights and obligations of the parties regarding the improvements (house and coconut trees) in accordance with the Civil Code provisions on possessors in good and bad faith. Costs in the first instance were charged against the defendants.