Roxas v. Aguirre
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over title to a portion of the hacienda of San Pedro Macati. Pedro P. Roxas initiated proceedings to inscribe his title to the entire estate, which comprised 1,761 hectares. Alejandro and Consolacion Aguirre, the appellees, claimed ownership of two small parcels within this estate, asserting title by extraordinary prescription. The court below found in favor of the appellees regarding one parcel, approximately 240 square meters, and in favor of the petitioner for the second parcel. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner, Pedro P. Roxas, filed a proceeding in the Court of Land Registration to inscribe his title to the hacienda of San Pedro Macati. The appellees, Alejandro and Consolacion Aguirre, opposed this inscription, claiming ownership of two small tracts within the hacienda through adverse possession. The Court of Land Registration ruled in favor of the appellees on one tract, finding they had acquired title by extraordinary prescription, and in favor of the petitioner on the other. The petitioner appealed the decision concerning the tract awarded to the appellees. 3. The Petition: The petitioner-appellant, Pedro P. Roxas, seeks review of the lower court's decision which sustained the appellees' claim of ownership over a 240-square-meter parcel of land within the San Pedro Macati hacienda. The petitioner argues that the appellees failed to establish title by prescription, particularly questioning the admissibility of an unrecorded deed dated August 3, 1867, which purportedly conveyed ownership to the appellees' predecessors. The petitioner contends that under Article 389 of the Mortgage Law, such an unrecorded instrument should not be admitted to prejudice third parties, like himself, who have recorded their title. The core issue is whether the appellees' possession, characterized by an unrecorded deed, can extinguish the petitioner's recorded title through prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether an unrecorded deed is admissible in evidence against a recorded owner to prove the character of an occupant's possession for purposes of prescription. Whether the legal owner of the land is a 'third person' under Article 389 of the Mortgage Law.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below in reference to the first parcel described in the opposition of the appellees is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the unrecorded deed was admissible to characterize the possession enjoyed by the appellees. Under Philippine Law, to establish title by extraordinary prescription, it is necessary to prove not only actual possession for thirty years but also that such possession was held in the concept of an owner (en concepto de dueño). The best way to prove this fact is to show that the occupants entered into possession under a deed which purported to convey to them the entire title to the property. The Court distinguished the present case from Ayala de Roxas v. Valencia, where a deed only conveyed a house and not the land, meaning the occupant was not possessing the land as an owner. In this case, the 1867 deed purported to convey the land itself, establishing that the Aguirres occupied the property as owners since that time. Therefore, the unrecorded document was essential for defining the nature of the occupancy and was properly admitted for that purpose. On Issue 2: The Court held that the appellant, as the legal owner of the realty against which the prescription was running, is not a 'third person' for the purposes of the Mortgage Law. Article 389 of the Mortgage Law, which prohibits the admission of unrecorded instruments to the prejudice of third persons, does not apply to the original owner. Citing authorities such as Moscoso and Galindo y Escosura, the Court emphasized that the owner of the land is a direct party to the prescriptive process and does not enjoy the protection afforded to subsequent purchasers or creditors who rely on the registry. Furthermore, Article 35 of the Mortgage Law explicitly states that as to the legal owner of the realty, title and prescription shall be determined and computed in accordance with common law. Since Roxas was not a 'third person' in this context, the unrecorded deed could be used to prove that his ownership was extinguished by the Aguirres' thirty years of adverse possession. Consequently, the appellees' claim of extraordinary prescription was valid against the recorded title of the appellant.
Main Doctrine
An unrecorded instrument cannot prejudice third persons under Article 389 of the Mortgage Law, but the owner of the land against which the statute of limitations is running is not considered a third person for the purposes of prescription.