Abalos v. Heirs of Torio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, as heirs of Vicente Torio, filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against Jaime Abalos and Spouses Felix and Consuelo Salazar. They alleged that Vicente died intestate in 1973, leaving a parcel of land where Jaime and the Spouses Salazar, through Vicente's tolerance, had built their houses. Respondents allowed them to remain but demanded they vacate in 1985, which was refused, prompting the filing of the complaint. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering the defendants and intervenors (petitioners herein) to turn over the land, remove their houses, pay land rent, attorney's fees, and costs. Jaime and the Spouses Salazar appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MTC decision, ruling that they acquired the property through prescription. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reinstated the MTC decision, reversing the RTC ruling. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Jaime and the Spouses Salazar. The Petition: Petitioners seek to set aside the CA decision, arguing that they and their predecessors-in-interest acquired absolute and exclusive ownership of the land through acquisitive prescription. They also questioned the due execution and authenticity of the deed of sale upon which respondents' predecessors-in-interest derived their ownership.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners acquired ownership over the disputed lot through acquisitive prescription. Whether the due execution and authenticity of the deed of sale upon which respondents' predecessors-in-interest derived their ownership were proven. Whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC decision and reinstating the MTC decision.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of acquisitive prescription: The Court held that petitioners failed to acquire ownership through acquisitive prescription. Their possession was characterized by mere tolerance of the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest, which is insufficient for acquisitive prescription. This was evidenced by a Tax Declaration in the name of Jaime for 1984, which acknowledged that his house was built on the land of Vicente, respondents' predecessor. This acknowledgment negated possession in good faith required for ordinary prescription. For extraordinary prescription, the Court found that even if their possession became adverse, the thirty-year period was not completed before the respondents filed their complaint in 1996, which interrupted their possession. The Court emphasized that possession must be en concepto de dueño (in the concept of an owner) and adverse to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right. Acts of possessory character executed due to license or by mere tolerance are inadequate for acquisitive prescription, no matter how long they last. On the issue of the deed of sale: The Court noted that the issue of the due execution and authenticity of the deed of sale was not raised by petitioners in their Answer or Pre-Trial Brief, and thus, could not be raised for the first time on appeal. However, even if considered, the Court found no reason to depart from the CA's findings. The deed of sale was duly notarized, granting it the presumption of regularity and evidentiary weight regarding its due execution. The Court stated that to overcome this presumption, evidence that is clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant is required. Petitioners' bare denials were insufficient to overcome this presumption. On the CA's error in reversing the RTC decision: The Court found no error in the CA's findings of fact and conclusions of law. The CA correctly reinstated the MTC decision, which was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence presented. The CA's determination that the petitioners' possession was by mere tolerance and that the deed of sale was valid was supported by the records. The Court reiterated that questions of fact are generally not reviewable under Rule 45, but even when exceptions apply, as when findings of fact of the CA and RTC conflict, the Court found no reversible error in the CA's conclusion after reviewing the records. The petitioners' failure to perfect an appeal from the MTC decision also meant that, for the intervenors, the MTC judgment had become final and executory.
Main Doctrine
Possession by mere tolerance, even if prolonged, does not ripen into ownership through acquisitive prescription because it lacks the element of adverse possession required for the concept of an owner. Furthermore, a notarized deed of sale enjoys the presumption of regularity and requires clear and convincing evidence to overcome.