Olegario v. Mari
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns ownership and possession of Lot Nos. 17553, 17526, and 14356 of the Mangatarem cadastral survey. Respondent Pedro C. Mari, through his predecessor Juan Mari, claimed ownership and possession of a parcel of land since 1916, evidenced by tax declarations, fencing, planting of trees, and construction of a house. Petitioners, represented by Arsenio Olegario, claimed ownership over a smaller parcel, initially declared as 50 square meters in 1947 and later expanded to 341 square meters in 1989. A dispute arose over encroachment, leading to a protest filed by the respondent with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which ruled in favor of the respondent. Procedural History: Following the DENR's decision in favor of the respondent, which became final and executory, petitioners amended their tax declaration in 1989. In 1990, the respondent filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan, for Recovery of Possession and Annulment of Tax Declaration. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them owners of Lots 17553 and 17526 and dismissing the respondent's complaint. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC's decision, declaring the respondent the lawful owner of Lot Nos. 17526, 17553, and 14356. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision. They argued that the CA erred in appreciating the evidence, adjudicating ownership in favor of the respondent, failing to declare the action barred by laches, and failing to find that petitioners acquired ownership through acquisitive prescription. Petitioners contended they had been in possession for over 30 years, thus acquiring ownership by prescription, and that the respondent failed to assert his rights within a reasonable time. The petition also raised issues regarding the CA's failure to find an error in adjudicating ownership and denying damages to the petitioners.
Issue(s)
Whether or not there was failure on the part of the Court of Appeals to appreciate and give weight to the evidence presented by the petitioners, and whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in its decision in adjudicating ownership of the said lots in favor of the respondent and in giving great weight to the respondent’s evidence. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in its failure to declare the action as barred by laches. Whether or not the Court of Appeals failed to find and declare the petitioners as having acquired ownership of the disputed lots by acquisitive prescription. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in adjudicating the lot in favor of respondent and also in denying award of damages to petitioners.
Ruling
The petition has no merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 18, 2001, which declared respondent Pedro C. Mari as the lawful owner of Lot Nos. 17526, 17553, and 14356 of the Mangatarem Cadastre.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of failure to appreciate evidence and error in adjudicating ownership: The Court found petitioners' evidence weaker than respondent's. Petitioners' claim of possession since 1937 was not clearly proven for the disputed lots, with their evidence supporting possession of their mother's land, possibly 50 square meters. The existence of a hollow block fence constructed in 1965 was the earliest point petitioners could be considered to have occupied the disputed property, contradicting their claim of prior possession. Conversely, respondent presented ample evidence, including tax declarations since 1916, survey plans, and possessory acts, demonstrating his predecessor's continuous, public, and peaceful possession in the concept of owner since 1916. The Court found it more plausible that the tax declarations and survey documents accurately reflected the parties' claims at the time of their execution, rather than petitioners' bare claim of inaccurate estimation. On the issue of laches: The Court found no laches on the part of the respondent. Laches requires not just the lapse of time but also unreasonable and unexplained delay in asserting rights, coupled with lack of knowledge by the defendant that the complainant will assert the right. In this case, petitioners had notice of respondent's and his predecessor's consistent claim of ownership, evident from survey notification cards and respondent's continued tax declarations. It was petitioners who suddenly changed their position in 1989 by expanding their claimed area. Upon discovery of this unequivocal change, respondent immediately filed his complaint in 1990, thus, no laches was present. On the issue of acquisitive prescription: The Court ruled that petitioners did not acquire ownership by acquisitive prescription. Firstly, they lacked a "just title" as they presented no document showing how titles were transferred to them, thus precluding ordinary prescription of 10 years. Secondly, ownership cannot be acquired by mere occupation unless coupled with hostility towards the true owner; possession must be adverse and under a claim of title. Petitioners failed to prove their possession was adverse or under claim of title, unlike respondent who, through his predecessor, had continuously declared the property for tax purposes since 1916, demonstrating an adverse claim against the State and other parties. The earliest petitioners could be considered to have made their claim public and unequivocal was in 1989 when they amended their tax declaration, which was only one year before respondent filed his complaint, insufficient for extraordinary prescription of 30 years. On the issue of denial of damages: Since the Court affirmed the CA's decision recognizing respondent's ownership and right of possession, there was no basis for an award of damages and attorney's fees in favor of petitioners.
Main Doctrine
Possession, to constitute the foundation of acquisitive prescription, must be possession 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 clearly not in the concept of an owner and such possessory acts, no matter how long continued, do not start the running of the period of prescription.