Mercado v. Espinocilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Doroteo Espinocilla owned Lot No. 552. After his death, his five children divided it equally. Dionisia died without issue, and Macario took possession of her share, claiming it was donated to him in May 1945 via an affidavit of transfer dated November 1, 1948. Macario and his daughters sold a portion to his son Roger (husband of respondent Belen and father of respondent Ferdinand). Roger later sold a portion to Caridad Atienza. Respondents Belen and Ferdinand occupy a portion of the land. Procedural History: Petitioner Celerino E. Mercado, son of Salvacion (one of Doroteo's children), sued respondents to recover portions of Lot No. 552, alleging encroachment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of petitioner, partially nullifying the sale from Macario to Roger and ordering a partition to determine the exact location of the encroached portion. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, dismissing petitioner's complaint on the ground of prescription, finding that extraordinary acquisitive prescription had set in. The Petition: Petitioner argues that his share increased and respondents encroached upon it. He contends that Macario's acquisition of Dionisia's share was fraudulent, creating a constructive trust, and that an oral partition is valid but should not prejudice his claim. The core issue is whether petitioner's action is barred by prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner’s action to recover the subject portion is barred by prescription. Whether Macario’s acquisition of Dionisia’s share was valid and whether it could be acquired by prescription despite alleged fraud. Whether the oral partition of Lot No. 552 terminated co-ownership and affected the shares of the heirs.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, dismissing petitioner's complaint on the ground of prescription. The Court held that extraordinary acquisitive prescription had already set in in favor of the respondents. Dispositive Portion: "WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit and AFFIRM the assailed Decision dated April 28, 2008 and Resolution dated July 22, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87480. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED."
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription barring petitioner's action: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that petitioner's action was barred by prescription. It explained that acquisitive prescription requires possession in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted, and adverse. Extraordinary prescription requires 30 years of such possession without need of title or good faith. The Court noted that petitioner himself admitted the adverse nature of respondents' possession by asserting a constructive trust, which is inherently adverse. Macario's possession of Dionisia's share began in 1945, and the sale by Macario and his daughters in 1977, and by Roger in 1985, further confirmed the adverse nature of their possession. The complaint was filed in 2000, well over 30 years later, thus extraordinary acquisitive prescription had set in. Furthermore, the Court held that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years from the accrual of the right of action, which is extinctive prescription. Since the action was filed 55 years after Macario occupied Dionisia's share, it was also barred by extinctive prescription. On Macario's acquisition and prescription of Dionisia's share: The Court found that Macario's possession of Dionisia's share was public and adverse since his co-owners also occupied portions of the lot. The Court emphasized that extraordinary prescription is unconcerned with Macario's title or good faith, rendering the RTC's finding that Macario's 1948 affidavit was void irrelevant to the acquisition of ownership through extraordinary prescription. Therefore, Macario could acquire the shares by prescription despite the alleged fraud or invalidity of the donation claim. The Court agreed with the CA that Macario's sisters wasted their opportunity to question his acts, allowing prescription to supervene. On the validity and effect of the oral partition: The CA found that an oral partition of Lot No. 552 occurred in 1945 after Dionisia's death, terminating co-ownership. The Court agreed with the CA that this partition, which divided the lot into four parts, implicitly included Dionisia's share. The petitioner's claim that his share increased and was encroached upon was dismissed because the action was filed too late. The Court noted that even if the oral partition was valid, the subsequent adverse possession by Macario and his successors, coupled with the passage of time, led to acquisitive prescription, extinguishing any claims of the other heirs over that portion.
Main Doctrine
The action for recovery of possession based on an alleged encroachment, filed 55 years after the adverse possession commenced, is barred by both extraordinary acquisitive prescription (for ownership) and extinctive prescription (for the right of action), even if the initial acquisition of the property involved fraud, as prescription may supervene even in cases of constructive trust.