Imuan vs. Cereno, G.R. No. 167995, Sept. 11, 2009

"prescription"

Facts:
Pablo contracted two marriages and all his children on both are already dead. The petitioners
in the case are his grandchildren while the respondent is the husband of his daughter from his
second marriage. Juana, Pablo’s second wife, together with her children continued to be in
possession of the parcel of land owned by Pablo after his death. A joint affidavit was executed
attesting that Pablo ceded the property in favor of Juana in the occasion of their marriage but the
document was lost. Juana sold said parcel of land to the respondent which was registered in the
register of deeds. The land area sold to respondents was divided by a barangay road. They built a
house on one side and planted fruit-bearing trees on the other side. It is on the latter’s side where
the petitioners took possession and built a nipa hut thereon. An ejectment case was filed by the
respondents against petitioners but was later dismissed when the petitioners left the area.




Petitioners now brought an action for reconveyance, damages, and annulment of deed of sale
by Juana to the respondents. They contend that it was through their tolerance that Juana and her
children constructed their house on the lot in dispute, that Pablo have not partitioned among his
heirs his property and the sale made by Juana to respondents are null and void. Respondents
invoke the ground that when Pablo married Juana the property was his exclusive property and
donated such through propter nuptias when they married. Thus Juana, being the owner of said
lot, validly made the sale to respondents who immediately took possession over the land and paid
its realty tax. MTC ruled in favor of the petitioners however upon appeal CA ruled in favor of
the respondents as it held that the respondents are in peaceful possession of said lot for 29 years
which suffice to meet the requirement of 10-year period of open, public, and adverse possession
in the concept of owner that the law on prescription requires. It ruled that petitioners are barred by
latches from claiming ownership of the disputed property.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners are barred by latches and prescription in claiming their share of the
property?

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents have acquired the disputed property by acquisitive
prescription. Prescription is another mode of acquiring ownership and other real rights over
immovable property and is concerned with a lapse of time laid down by law where possession
should be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted, and adverse. Possession
is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, and notorious. It is continuous when uninterrupted,
unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the adverse possessor can show
exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; and
notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public or
the people in the neighborhood. The party who asserts ownership by adverse possession must
prove the presence of the essential elements of acquisitive prescription. Ordinary acquisitive
prescription requires possession in good faith and a just title in 10 years while extraordinary
acquisitive prescription involves uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years without the need
for good title and good faith.

Respondents immediately took possession of the property after buying it and diligently paid
its realty tax. Even if the petitioners saw respondents built a house thereon and planted fruit-
bearing trees, they did not raise objection on the respondent’s possession. Their inaction further
made them guilty of latches since they live merely 100 meters away from the property to know
of the respondent’s possession of said land. They only filed an action for reconveyance 29 years
after the respondent’s peaceful possession over the property, the 10-year prescription period for
ordinary acquisitive prescription has already lapsed. The SC affirmed the CA decision declaring
the respondents as the rightful owner of the land in dispute.