Bartolome v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case involves a dispute over the ownership of Lot No. 11165. Epitacio Batara declared a portion of the lot for tax purposes in 1906 and 1914. He entrusted the lot to his cousin, Doroteo Bartolome, before leaving Laoag. After Epitacio's death in 1916 and Maria Gonzales' death in 1926, their heirs, including Resurreccion Bartolome, returned to Laoag. Doroteo Bartolome migrated to Davao City in 1926 and died there in 1928. Procedural History: In 1933, Ursula Cid, widow of Doroteo's son Bernabe, filed an answer in cadastral proceedings (Cadastral Case No. 53), claiming ownership of Lot No. 11165 by inheritance from Doroteo. In 1934, Resurreccion Bartolome also filed an answer, claiming ownership of a portion by inheritance from Epitacio and Maria Gonzales. Ursula Cid later amended her answer, claiming absolute ownership through purchase and possession for over fifty years. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the heirs of Epitacio Batara for a portion and the heirs of Doroteo Bartolome for the remaining portion, finding Ursula Cid's deeds of sale defective and her possession insufficient for ownership. The Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) reversed the RTC, holding that deeds of sale presented by Ursula Cid were ancient documents and that her continuous possession vested her with legal presumption of ownership under a just title. The Petition: Resurreccion Bartolome filed a petition for review on certiorari questioning the IAC's application of the ancient documents rule to a specific deed (Exhibit 4) and whether acquisitive prescription runs during the pendency of a cadastral case.
Issue(s)
Whether Exhibit 4, a deed of sale, qualifies as an ancient document under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, despite a missing page. Whether acquisitive prescription runs during the pendency of a cadastral case. Whether Ursula Cid and her predecessors-in-interest acquired ownership of Lot No. 11165 through acquisitive prescription prior to the institution of the cadastral proceedings. Whether Maria Gonzales had the right to sell a portion of the property, considering it was conjugal property and the estate of Epitacio Batara had not been settled; and on the adjudication of the lot.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court. The eastern portion of Lot No. 11165 with an area of 772 square meters was adjudicated in favor of the heirs of Epitacio Batara, represented by Resurreccion Bartolome, while the remaining area was adjudicated in favor of the heirs of Doroteo Bartolome. Petitioners were ordered to pay the cost of the survey and subdivision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of Exhibit 4 as an ancient document: The Court held that while Exhibit 4 met the age and custody requirements for ancient documents, the missing fourth page, which allegedly contained the vendor's signature, rendered the document incomplete and affected its authenticity. An incomplete document, especially one lacking the vendor's signature, is considered suspect. Furthermore, Ursula Cid's failure to claim purchase as a mode of acquisition in her initial answer in 1933, despite allegedly possessing the deed since 1917, raised doubts about its genuineness. Therefore, Exhibit 4 was excluded for lack of proof of due execution and authenticity. On whether acquisitive prescription runs during the pendency of a cadastral case: The Court reiterated its ruling in Cano v. De Camacho that the institution of cadastral proceedings, including the publication of notice, suspends the running of the prescriptive period. Consequently, the IAC erred in attributing acquisitive prescription in favor of Ursula Cid up to the present time. On acquisitive prescription prior to the cadastral proceedings: The Court found that prior to the institution of the cadastral proceedings, Doroteo Bartolome was in possession of the lot until his migration in 1926. Even if Bernabe Bartolome declared a portion as his in 1925, the period from 1925 to the filing of the cadastral case in 1933 was insufficient to establish the ten-year period required for acquisitive prescription under Section 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Tax declarations and payments, while indicia of a claim of ownership, do not conclusively prove ownership, especially when made during the pendency of the cadastral case. On Maria Gonzales' right to sell the property and the adjudication of the lot: The Court noted that under Article 834 of the old Civil Code, a surviving spouse is entitled to a usufructuary portion. Until the liquidation of the deceased spouse's estate and payment of obligations, the surviving spouse or her heirs could not assert a claim of title over the community property. In the absence of proof that Epitacio Batara's estate was settled, Maria Gonzales had no right to sell any portion of the property. This further weakened the claim based on Exhibit 4. The Court found that Epitacio Batara's revised tax declaration indicated ownership of only 772 square meters, thus limiting the claim of his heirs to that area. For the remaining portion, the Court ruled that since the deeds of sale presented by Ursula Cid (Exhibits 2 and 3) were found to be worthless by the RTC, and these findings were binding, the property inherited from Doroteo Bartolome must be shared equally by his children or their heirs.
Main Doctrine
The institution of cadastral proceedings, or at least the publication of the notice therein issued, has the effect of suspending the running of the prescriptive period. Furthermore, a tax declaration does not prove ownership, it is merely an indicium of a claim of ownership.