Ordoñez v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over two parcels of unregistered land, a residential lot known as the "looban" and a 55,000 square meter riceland known as the "tubigan," both inherited by Monico Ordoñez from his parents. Monico sold the "tubigan" to his brother, Gaudencio Ordoñez, on April 16, 1940, evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale. Monico also verbally mortgaged the "looban" to Pedro Encarnacion for P300, with the agreement that Encarnacion would receive 50% of the harvest and pay real estate taxes. Gaudencio later paid P400 to Encarnacion to settle Monico's debt, effectively stepping into Encarnacion's shoes as creditor for the "looban." Gaudencio allowed his grandson, Pablito Bernardo, and his wife to build a house on this property. Procedural History: On July 8, 1983, Monico Ordoñez filed a complaint against Gaudencio Ordoñez and Generosa Ordoñez in the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, seeking to quiet title to both the "looban" and the "tubigan," and to eject the Bernardo spouses from the "looban." The trial court, on June 17, 1985, declared the "looban" to belong exclusively to Monico Ordoñez and the "tubigan" to Gaudencio Ordoñez, while dismissing the ejectment claim and other claims. The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated March 9, 1988, affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Petition: The petitioners, Gaudencio and Generosa Ordoñez, seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, alleging that the appellate court erred in holding that the "looban" was in the possession of the private respondent, in not holding that Gaudencio acquired it by acquisitive prescription, in not holding that Monico's cause of action was barred by prescription or laches, and in not presuming that the non-production of the document between Monico and Pedro Encarnacion was adverse to Monico. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' decision, particularly noting that tax receipts are not conclusive evidence of title and that Gaudencio's possession was not established as adverse or continuous.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the "looban" is in the possession of the private respondent, and whether the petitioner acquired ownership of the "looban" by acquisitive prescription. Whether the petitioner acquired ownership of the "looban" by acquisitive prescription, specifically regarding adverse possession. Whether the private respondent's cause of action to quiet title is barred by prescription or laches. Whether the non-production of the document between the private respondent and Pedro Encarnacion gives rise to a presumption adverse to the private respondent.
Ruling
The petition for review is denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of possession and acquisitive prescription of the "looban": The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that the "looban" belongs exclusively to Monico Ordoñez. The Court held that receipts for realty taxes paid by Encarnacion and Gaudencio Ordoñez on the "looban" are not evidence of title, but at best, indicia of possession. Against the admitted fact that Monico was in actual occupancy of the "looban" as he was living in the ancestral home, Gaudencio's tax receipts could not prevail as proof of his alleged "adverse" possession necessary for acquisitive prescription. The Court further found that Gaudencio's possession was neither adverse nor continuous, as he had never informed Monico or other relatives that he had purchased the "looban" from Pedro Encarnacion. The testimony of other relatives corroborated Monico's claim. On the issue of acquisitive prescription and adverse possession: The Court reiterated the principle that possession, to be the foundation of a prescriptive right, must be under a claim of title or must be adverse. Acts of a possessory character performed by one who holds the property by mere tolerance of the owner are not considered possession in the concept of an owner, and thus, do not start the period of prescription. Since Gaudencio's possession was found to be by mere tolerance, it could not ripen into ownership by acquisitive prescription. On the issue of prescription or laches barring the action to quiet title: The Supreme Court held that an action to quiet title is imprescriptible. Therefore, Monico's claim was not barred by prescription or laches, as the nature of the action itself is not subject to such limitations. On the issue of the non-production of the document between Monico and Pedro Encarnacion: The Court found that it having been established that Monico inherited the "looban," the burden of proving that he sold it to Encarnacion fell on Gaudencio, as the supposed transferee of Encarnacion. This burden of proof was not discharged by Gaudencio. Therefore, no adverse presumption arose against Monico due to the non-production of the document.
Main Doctrine
Possession, to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right, must be possession under a claim of title or it must be adverse. Acts of a possessory character performed by one who holds the property by mere tolerance of the owner are not in the concept of an owner, and such possessory acts, no matter how long continued, do not start the period of prescription running. An action to quiet title is imprescriptible.