Arano v. Pulido
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rogaciana Roca inherited an unregistered 20,000-square-meter property. She sold a 5,000-square-meter portion to Alfredo Pulido in 1965 via a notarized Affidavit of Quitclaim. Upon Rogaciana's death, her daughter Segundina Heluhano inherited the remaining 4,172-square-meter portion. Segundina sold a 500-square-meter portion to Spouses Pantao and Sacati Makaraya. Alfredo Pulido filed a forcible entry case against Segundina and Spouses Makaraya in 2005, which was decided in Alfredo's favor, ordering their eviction. During a relocation survey for the forcible entry case, Segundina learned of a segregation of Lot No. 1040-Part into Lot Nos. 1 and 2, now Lot No. 9134. Procedural History: Segundina and Spouses Makaraya filed a Complaint for Accion Publiciana/Recovery of Possession and Annulment of Approved Subdivision/Segregation Plan against respondents, Alfredo's children. They sought declaration of prior possession and restoration thereof, and cancellation of the segregation plan. Respondents denied the allegations, asserting their father's purchase and their own possession since 1965, which ripened into an indefeasible right. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) dismissed the complaint, finding that Segundina and Spouses Makaraya failed to prove prior possession, while respondents had actual possession since 1965. The MTCC also noted the forcible entry case's decision in favor of respondents and considered the present complaint a veiled appeal. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC's decision, applying res judicata (bar by former judgment) due to identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Segundina appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA disagreed with the RTC on res judicata based on identity of causes of action but affirmed the dismissal based on the conclusiveness of judgment regarding prior possession. The CA also applied extraordinary acquisitive prescription in favor of respondents for the 1,688-square-meter excess portion, noting its unregistered nature and respondents' possession since 1965. The CA ruled that Article 1542 of the Civil Code applied, as the sale was for a lump sum with defined boundaries. The CA denied Segundina's Motion for Reconsideration. The Petition: Segundina filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's rulings on res judicata (conclusiveness of judgment) regarding the 1,688-square-meter excess, prescription barring her claim, and the interpretation of "more or less" in the quitclaim. She argued the excess was unreasonable and not adjudicated in the forcible entry case, and she had actual possession.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA committed reversible error in ruling that the conclusiveness of judgment is applicable to the excess of 1,688 square meters not included in the forcible entry case. Whether the CA committed reversible error in ruling that prescription barred Segundina's action to recover the 1,688-square-meter portion. Whether the CA committed reversible error in ruling that the excess of 1,688 square meters is within the meaning of the phrase "more or less" as indicated in the quitclaim.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated August 31, 2018, and the Resolution dated May 24, 2019, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07174-MIN are affirmed. The Supreme Court found no reversible error on the part of the CA in affirming the dismissal of the accion publiciana filed by Segundina and Spouses Makaraya for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of conclusiveness of judgment to the excess portion: The Court agreed that conclusiveness of judgment could only apply to the 5,000-square-meter portion explicitly pronounced in the forcible entry case. However, Segundina still failed to establish a better right of possession over the 1,688-square-meter excess area. The MTCC had declared respondents in actual possession and Segundina not in prior possession. Segundina miserably failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove her prior possession of the disputed property, which encompassed Lot Nos. 1 and 2. The Court noted that Alfredo actually occupied 7,200 square meters, and the land surveyed for respondents exceeded 5,000 square meters, a fact confirmed by Engineer Malayang, Jr. Respondents had been in possession of not only the 5,000-square-meter portion but also the excess since the sale in 1965. The property subject of the accion publiciana, pertaining to Lot Nos. 1 and 2, would not have included the 1,688-square-meter excess if it were not already possessed by respondents. Thus, while the forcible entry case described the land as 5,000 square meters, respondents previously occupied more than that area, and the portion Segundina sought to recover was part of that which respondents already possessed. On prescription barring Segundina's action: The Court found that a provisional determination of ownership was necessary, especially since Segundina invoked her ownership rights over unregistered land. Segundina could not have acquired the excess portion through inheritance because it was no longer part of Rogaciana's estate due to the quitclaim and respondents' possession since 1965. Respondents were shown to have occupied a total of 6,788 square meters, exceeding the 5,000 square meters in the quitclaim. The CA observed that the quitclaim stated boundaries and area in "more or less" because Rogaciana was not sure of the exact area and merely pinpointed landmarks. Respondents' possession of the excess portion from 1965 until 2005, when interrupted by Segundina, indicated it was part of the parcel sold to Alfredo. Even assuming the 1,688-square-meter portion was not part of the sale, Segundina's inaction from 1965 to 2005, during which respondents occupied and possessed the property in the concept of owner for over 40 years, barred her action for recovery. These findings were provisional for the purpose of resolving the accion publiciana and did not preclude a separate action for ownership. On the interpretation of "more or less" in the quitclaim: The Court agreed with the CA that Article 1542 of the Civil Code applied. This article governs sales of real estate made for a stated price for a certain area, with the boundaries given, in which case the vendor is bound to deliver all that is included within said boundaries, even if it be greater than the area specified. The quitclaim described both the boundaries of the lot sold and its area, indicated as "more or less." This phrasing, coupled with respondents' continuous possession of the excess area since 1965, indicated that Rogaciana intended to sell all land within the specified boundaries, regardless of the exact measurement. The respondents' possession of 6,788 square meters, exceeding the stated 5,000 square meters, was consistent with this interpretation and the application of Article 1542.
Main Doctrine
In an action for Accion Publiciana, failure to establish prior possession renders the complaint dismissible. Even if the prior forcible entry case did not explicitly rule on an excess portion, the principle of conclusiveness of judgment and extraordinary acquisitive prescription can bar recovery if the claimant fails to prove a better right of possession, especially over unregistered land possessed openly and adversely for over 40 years.