Nicolas v. Jose
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Municipality of Cavite, through its president Catalino Nicolas, petitioned the Court of Land Registration to be inscribed as owner of a tract of land (193.29 sq. meters) in Paseo de la Soledad. Maria Jose, Irene Jose, and Macario Jose objected, claiming ownership by prescription. Separately, Maria Jose et al. petitioned for the inscription of seven tracts of land, including the parcel in case No. 155. The seventh parcel contained the "Kiosko Cafe," and the sixth parcel contained the "Cavite Theater." The Municipality of Cavite objected to the inscription of the land where the theater stood. Procedural History: The Court of Land Registration granted the petition of Maria Jose et al. for both the theater and Kiosko Cafe tracts, finding they acquired title by prescription. The court denied the municipality's inscription request for the Kiosko Cafe land and ordered inscription of both tracts in favor of Maria Jose et al. The municipality moved for a new trial, which was denied, and appealed. The Petition: The municipality sought inscription as owner of the land. Maria Jose et al. sought inscription of the land occupied by the Kiosko Cafe and the Cavite Theater, claiming ownership by prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners, Maria Jose et al., acquired title to the land occupied by the Cavite Theater and the Kiosko Cafe by prescription. Whether the land occupied by the Kiosko Cafe, being a public square, is subject to inscription by the municipality.
Ruling
The judgment ordering the inscription of the lands described in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition of Maria Jose et al. is reversed. The judgment denying the petition of the municipality of Cavite is affirmed, but on the ground that the property in question, being a public square, is not subject to inscription.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription for the Cavite Theater and Kiosko Cafe: The Court held that the petitioners, Maria Jose et al., failed to establish title by prescription. While the structures were built on what was found to be a public street or square, any claim of ownership must rest on a grant of the land itself or on the statute of limitations. The evidence did not show any grant of the land. Regarding prescription, the Court found that neither the petitioners nor their ancestor possessed the land for thirty years. To claim title by prescription under a ten-year period, possession must be under color of title and in good faith. The Court found that a mere license or concession, without proof of its terms or that it constituted a grant of the land, could not serve as color of title. Furthermore, the transmission of rights to heirs by the death of an ancestor does not constitute color of title for the purposes of the statute of limitations, citing contrary rulings from the Supreme Court of Spain. Therefore, the petitioners' claim of title by prescription was denied. On the issue of inscription of the land occupied by the Kiosko Cafe: The Court affirmed the denial of the municipality's petition for inscription, not because the petitioners owned it, but because the land in question was a public square. Article 344 of the Civil Code defines property for public use, which includes squares and public streets. Such property is not patrimonial and is not subject to inscription. Article 25 of the regulations for the execution of the Mortgage Law prohibits the inscription of public streets. While Act No. 1039 granted certain public lands and buildings to the municipality, the Court interpreted this not to convert public squares into patrimonial property subject to registration as owner thereof. Thus, the property being dedicated to public use, it is not subject to inscription by the municipality.
Main Doctrine
The transmission of rights to heirs by the death of the ancestor does not constitute color of title for the purposes of the statute of limitations. Property dedicated to public use, such as public streets and squares, is not subject to inscription by the municipality as patrimonial property.