Constantino Alvarez, Jr. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In April 1936, the Director of Lands filed a petition for settlement of titles over lands in Ormoc Cadastre, including Lot No. 689. Despite notice and extensions, no one claimed Lot No. 689, leading to an order of general default and dismissal on April 1, 1942. Procedural History: Cecilia, Alicia, and Arturo Garcia Alvarez (Fernandez Children), heirs of Segundo Garcia Fernandez and Eulogia Alvarez, sought to lift the default order on July 22, 1940, but their petition was dismissed on technical grounds. Fourteen years later, on July 9, 1956, Constantino Alvarez, Jr., Casildita Alvarez de Muertegui, and Rosalia Alvarez Vda. de Tan (Alvarez Heirs), claiming to be voluntary heirs of the decedent spouses, moved to reopen the proceedings. The Cadastral Court granted this motion, set aside the default order, and gave the Fernandez Children time to file their answers. The Fernandez Children failed to appear on the scheduled trial date, leading to an ex parte presentation of evidence by the Alvarez Heirs, who were subsequently awarded Lot No. 689 on September 1, 1958. The Fernandez Children filed a petition for review alleging fraud, pointing out contradictions in the Alvarez Heirs' claims of ownership (inheritance vs. purchase) and the lack of a deed of sale. The Cadastral Court denied this petition. On appeal (CA-G.R. No. 27597), the Court of Appeals set aside the denial, remanded the case for reception of evidence from both parties, and directed a new trial. After a new trial, the Cadastral Court again declared the Alvarez Heirs as owners, ruling that the Fernandez Children's cause was barred by laches and that Constantino Alvarez, Jr. acquired the land by prescription. The Fernandez Children appealed again (CA-G.R. No. 52260), and the Court of Appeals reversed the Cadastral Court's decision, declaring the Fernandez Children as owners. The Court of Appeals found the claims of title of the Alvarez Heirs doubtful due to contradictory theories of acquisition and noted that Constantino Alvarez, Sr. did not assert any claim despite alleged occupation since 1928. It also found that tax declarations indicated Constantino Alvarez, Jr. was merely an administrator, not an owner, and thus his possession could not ripen into ownership by prescription. The appellate court rejected the laches defense, stating that reopening the case necessarily subjected it to all claims, including the appellants'. The Petition: The Alvarez Heirs filed a petition for review on certiorari, attributing errors to the Court of Appeals for failing to apply Section 5 of Rule 10, not considering a prior judgment final and executory, and not holding the Fernandez Children guilty of laches and estoppel.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to apply Section 5 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. Whether the judgment in CA-G.R. No. 7122 rendered on September 27, 1940, had become long final and executory. Whether the Fernandez Children were guilty of laches and estoppel.
Ruling
The petition for review on certiorari is DENIED, and the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 52250-R promulgated on February 5, 1982, is AFFIRMED in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to apply Section 5 of Rule 10: The Court found the petitioners' argument unintelligible, stating that the evidence presented, which contradicted their motion to reopen, should not be deemed to have superseded or obliterated the allegations in the motion. The Court implied that the contradiction remained and was a valid point of contention. On the finality of the judgment in CA-G.R. No. 7122: The Court found this argument equally unintelligible. It clarified that the Court of Appeals did not pronounce the prior judgment as final and executory in a manner that would bar subsequent proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prior judgment was not on the merits, and the doctrine of res adjudicata was not timely invoked by the petitioners, thus deemed waived. On laches and estoppel: The Court rejected the petitioners' claim of actual, adverse, uninterrupted, and continuous possession as owners since before World War II. It reiterated the Court of Appeals' finding that Constantino Alvarez, Jr. possessed the property not as an owner but as an administrator. As an administrator, his possession was not adverse to the owner and could not ripen into ownership by prescription. The Court affirmed that the repudiation of his administrator status, and the assertion of ownership, could only be considered from July 9, 1956, when the motion to reopen was filed. The Court also rejected the claim of laches against the Fernandez Children, emphasizing that the reopening of the cadastral case was subject to all claims, and to hold otherwise would nullify a previous decision of the Court of Appeals.
Main Doctrine
A claim of ownership by acquisitive prescription cannot be sustained where the possession was merely as an administrator, as such possession is not adverse to the owner. The repudiation of the administrator status, which is necessary to commence the period of prescription, can only be considered from the time such adverse claim is unequivocally asserted.