Navera v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Leocadio Navera donated a property in 1916 via a private instrument. OCT No. RO-154(NA) was later issued in 1927 in the name of "Elena Navera, et al." covering Lot 1460. Elena Navera died in 1924. Eduarda Navera, a co-owner of Lot 1460, sold her share to Arsenio Nares via a public instrument on May 14, 1947. Eduarda Navera again sold a portion of Lot 1460 to Mariano Navera on June 26, 1948. Arsenio Nares sold a portion of Lot 4167 to Perpetua Dacillo on January 30, 1953. Mariano Navera sold his acquired lot to Serapio Mustar on August 13, 1955, which was later corrected in a stipulation on February 11, 1956. Serapio Mustar sold Lot 1460 to Genaro Navera on April 7, 1959. Francisco Dacillo sold a portion of Lot 1460 to Genaro Navera on September 3, 1971. None of these transfers were annotated on the Original Certificate of Title. Procedural History: Respondents Arsenio Nares and Felix Nares filed a complaint for ownership and possession of Lot 1460, claiming they are absolute owners by inheritance from Elena Navera and purchase from Eduarda Navera. They alleged that Mariano Navera's sale to Serapio Mustar and subsequent sale to Genaro Navera were sham transactions. Petitioners Genaro Navera and Emma Amador denied the claims, asserting ownership through possession since 1916 and alleging prescription. The trial court declared respondents owners of Lot 1460, except for 5,726 square meters belonging to Genaro Navera. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners seek reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision, assigning errors related to the failure to appreciate acquisitive prescription, the application of the rule on actual knowledge equivalent to registration, and the finding of bad faith.
Issue(s)
Whether acquisitive prescription can be invoked by the petitioners. Whether actual knowledge is equivalent to registration. Whether the petitioners were possessors in bad faith.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED. Respondents Arsenio Nares and Felix Nares are declared the rightful owners of Lot 1460, except for 5,726 square meters which belongs to petitioner Genaro Navera. The rights of other compulsory heirs of Elena Navera are without prejudice.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Acquisitive Prescription): The Court ruled that acquisitive prescription was not sufficiently proven and was not properly pleaded in the petitioners' answer. The evidence did not clearly and positively establish the elements of acquisitive prescription, particularly possession in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted. The Court noted that the petitioners' predecessors-in-interest did not declare the land for taxation purposes until 1966, while respondents Arsenio Nares and Felix Nares were declared owners in tax declarations from 1951 and 1965. Furthermore, the petitioners' claim of possession was contradicted by evidence showing that respondent Arsenio Nares was evicted in 1957, indicating bad faith. The ordinary acquisitive prescription of ten years requires good faith, which was absent. Extraordinary acquisitive prescription of thirty years also requires sufficient proof of compliance, which was not met due to the presence of bad faith and the dispute over ownership. On Issue 2 (Actual Knowledge vs. Registration): The Court found this contention to be without merit. The original certificate of title itself covered the entire Lot 1460 in the name of "Elena Navera, et al.," without any mention of a prior donation to Fausto Mustar. The Court emphasized that the donation propter nuptias made by Leocadio Navera in 1916 was not recorded in the registry of property or inscribed in the Original Certificate of Title, nor had the donee titled the property in his name. Moreover, the alleged donee, Fausto Mustar, was not a party to the case, nor had he transferred the property to Mariano Navera via a public instrument. Therefore, any knowledge of this alleged donation by the private respondents was immaterial given the clear terms of the title and the lack of proper registration or transfer of the donated property. On Issue 3 (Possession in Bad Faith): The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that the petitioners were in bad faith. The Court applied Article 526 of the Civil Code, defining a possessor in good faith as one unaware of any flaw in their title, and a possessor in bad faith as one who possesses contrary to this. A possessor in good faith becomes a possessor in bad faith upon becoming aware of the flaw in their title, and their possession is legally interrupted when summoned to trial. The Court noted that the dispute over Lot 1460 had been ongoing for years, and petitioners, by purchasing the land in 1959 and possessing it thereafter, knew or should have known of the rights and interests of their cousins, the respondents. The fact that respondents Arsenio Nares and Felix Nares were declared owners for taxation purposes from 1951 to 1965, while petitioners' predecessors did not declare the land in their names until 1966, further supported the finding of bad faith on the part of the petitioners and their predecessors.
Main Doctrine
In cases of double sale of immovable property where no inscription has been made, ownership shall belong to the person who in good faith was first in possession, and in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. Possession includes material and symbolic possession acquired by the execution of a public instrument.