G.R. No. L-9086
Date: March 19, 1915
Case Title: Maria de la Cruz, et al., petitioners-appellees, vs. Clemente Dayrit, objector and appellant.

FACTS:
On January 19, 1912, Maria de la Cruz Dizon and her children filed an application with the Court of Land Registration for the registration of a parcel of land with a building, located at the intersection of Calles Santo Entierro and Jesus in Angeles, Pampanga. They claimed ownership by inheritance from their predecessor, Martin Tiotuyco. The provincial fiscal of Pampanga opposed, alleging portions of the land formed part of public highways. Clemente Dayrit also opposed, claiming the land as part of a larger tract he inherited from relatives.

The land was originally acquired by Martin Tiotuyco by purchase from Mauricio Villanueva in 1886. In August 1897, Tiotuyco obtained a possessory information for the property, which was approved and annotated in the property registry. He died in 1911, leaving the property to his widow and children. Dayrit asserted ownership based on inheritance from Agustina Henson, who allegedly acquired it from Luisa Eusebio.

The trial court adjudicated the land in favor of the applicants. Dayrit appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the applicants have acquired ownership of the land by prescription, thereby entitling them to registration, or whether the opponent Clemente Dayrit has a superior claim of ownership.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling in favor of the applicants.

The Court held that the applicants and their predecessor, Martin Tiotuyco, had been in open, continuous, and peaceable possession of the land under a claim of ownership since 1886. This possession was perfected by the possessory information obtained in 1897 and inscribed in the registry. The opponent, Dayrit, failed to prove that he or his predecessors had taken any action to recover the property within the prescriptive periods provided by law.

Specifically, the Court applied Section 41 of Act No. 190 (the Code of Civil Procedure), which establishes a ten-year prescriptive period for actions to recover real property. Dayrit did not institute any recovery action within ten years after the law’s promulgation. Furthermore, the applicants’ possession for over twenty years converted the annotated possessory information into a title of ownership under the Mortgage Law.

The Court found Dayrit’s evidence, including testimonies and documents, insufficient to overcome the applicants’ evidence of acquisitive prescription. The applicants’ possession was not shown to be precarious or by mere tolerance. Thus, the applicants acquired ownership by prescription and were entitled to registration. The opposition of Clemente Dayrit and the provincial board was without merit. The judgment was affirmed with costs against the appellant.