HIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 167995 : September 11, 2009 JULITA V. IMUAN, RO OL!

O V"LAS#U"$, ARTURO V"LAS#U"$, AR%A IO V"LAS#U"$, &"TT' V"LAS#U"$, ROSA V. ("TU'A, !"LI%I A V"LAS#U"$, RA'MUN O IMUAN, G"RAR O IMUAN, JR., )*+ AN ONG V"LAS#U"$, Petitioners, v. JUANITO %"R"NO, !"&"LIN A G. %"R"NO, G"MMA %. GA&AR A, L" "SMA G. %"R"NO, &L"%"RIA %. SULA )*+ SALL' G. %"R"NO, Respondents. DECISION ("RALTA, J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to set aside the Decision1 dated Au ust !"# !$$" of the Court of Appea%s &CA' in CA()*R* CV No* +,""+# which reversed the Decision of the Re iona% -ria% Court &R-C'# Branch "1# Da upan Cit.# in Civi% Case No* ,,($!,1$(D* A%so assai%ed is the CA Reso%ution! dated Apri% !,# !$$/ den.in petitioners0 1otion for reconsideration* -he facts are as fo%%ows2
cra2nad

Durin his %ifeti1e# 3a4%o de )u51an &3a4%o' contracted two 1arria es* His first 1arria e was with -eodora Soriano &-eodora'# with who1 he had three chi%dren# na1e%.# A%fredo de )u51an &A%fredo'# Cristita )* Ve%as6ue5 &Cristita'# and Inda. )* Soriano &Inda.'* His second 1arria e was in 1,1, with 7uana Ve%as6ue5 &7uana'# with who1 he a%so had three chi%dren# na1e%.2 Nena De )u51an &Nena'# -eodora de )u51an &-eodora'# and So%edad )* Cereno &So%edad'* A%% these chi%dren are now dead* 3etitioners are 3a4%o0s randchi%dren 4. his first 1arria e# whi%e respondent 7uanito Cereno &7uanito' is So%edad0s hus4and and the other respondents are their chi%dren* On 7u%. 1/# 1,8+# 3a4%o died intestate %eavin two parce%s of %and# to wit2 &1' a parce% of coconut %and %ocated at Sa%aan 9an a%dan# 3an asinan# containin an area of nine hundred ei ht.(si: &,;+' s6uare 1eters# 1ore or %ess# dec%ared under -a: Dec%aration No* ;$8!< and &!' a parce% of corn%and %ocated at &In%a14o' 3a%ua# 9an a%dan# 3an asinan# containin an area of three thousand three hundred thirt.(four &8#88"' s6uare 1eters# 1ore or %ess# dec%ared under -a: Dec%aration No* /1//* After 3a4%o0s death in 1,8+# his second wife 7uana and their chi%dren continued to 4e in possession of the parce% of %and %ocated at Sa%aan# 9an a%dan# 3an asinan &the disputed propert.'# where the. %ived since the. were 1arried in 1,1,* On 7anuar. !"# 1,=$# 7uana e:ecuted a Deed of A4so%ute Sa%e 8 in favor of respondents(spouses# So%edad# 7uana and 3a4%o0s dau hter# and her hus4and 7uanito conve.in the su4>ect propert.* -he deed was du%. re istered with the Re ister of Deeds of ?in a.en# 3an asinan* On 7anuar. !+# 1,=$# a 7oint Affidavit" was e:ecuted 4. A%fredo de )u51an and -eofi%o Cendana attestin to the fact that 3a4%o ceded the propert. in favor of 7uana on the occasion of their 1arria e# 4ut the docu1ent was %ost* Su4se6uent%.# -a: Dec%aration No* !8;$8/ was issued in the na1es of respondents(spouses who re%i ious%. paid the ta:es due on the propert.* Since then respondents(spouses en>o.ed e:c%usive# open and uninterrupted possession of the propert.* ?ater# the disputed propert. which ori ina%%. consisted of one who%e %ot was traversed 4. a barangay road dividin it into two &!' %ots# na1e%.# ?ot 8/88# with an area of +,$ s6uare 1eters covered 4. -a: Dec%aration No* !1!+; + < and ?ot 8//,# with an area of /+$ s6uare 1eters covered 4. -a: dec%aration No* !1!+,* =Respondents(spouses Cereno 4ui%t their house on ?ot 8//, and had p%anted fruit(4earin trees on ?ot 8/88* 9eanwhi%e# the parce%

of corn%and in 3a%ua# 9an a%dan# 3an asinan has never 4een in possession of an. of the parties since it eroded and was su41er ed under water# eventua%%. for1in part of the river4ed* So1eti1e in 7anuar. 1,,,# petitioners entered and took possession of ?ot 8/88 4. 4ui%din a s1a%% nipa hut thereon* Respondents then fi%ed 4efore the 9unicipa% -ria% Court &9-C' of 9an a%dan# 3an asinan an e>ect1ent case a ainst petitioners* In an Order ; dated Dece14er ,# 1,,,# the 9-C dis1issed the case as 4oth parties pra.ed for its dis1issa% considerin that petitioners had a%read. %eft ?ot 8/88 i11ediate%. after the fi%in of the co1p%aint* On Apri% /# 1,,,# petitioners fi%ed with the R-C of Da upan Cit. a Co1p%aint for annu%1ent of docu1ent# reconve.ance and da1a es a ainst respondents a%%e in that2 &1' the estate of their randfather 3a4%o has not .et 4een sett%ed or partitioned a1on his heirs nor had 3a4%o 1ade disposition of his properties durin his %ifeti1e< &!' it was on%. throu h their to%erance that 7uana and his chi%dren constructed their house on ?ot 8//,< &8' the sa%e of the disputed propert. 1ade 4. 7uana to respondents(spouses Cereno and the issuance of ta: dec%arations in the %atter0s na1es are nu%% and void* 3etitioners pra.ed for the annu%1ent of the deed of sa%e# cance%%ation of -a: Dec%aration Nos* !1!+; and !1!+,# the reconve.ance of the propert. to the1 and da1a es* In their Answer# respondents c%ai1ed that after the death of 3a4%o0s first wife# 3a4%o partitioned his propert. a1on his chi%dren and that spouses Nico1edes and Cristita Ve%as6ue5 ac6uired 1ost of the properties as the. were 1ore financia%%. capa4%e< that at the ti1e 3a4%o 1arried 7uana# the properties he had were his e:c%usive share in the partition< that of the two parce%s of %and 3a4%o had at that ti1e# he donated the su4>ect propert. to 7uana in a donation propter nuptias when the. 1arried< that the deed of donation was %ost durin the 7apanese occupation and such %oss was evidenced 4. the 7oint Affidavit e:ecuted 4. A%fredo de )u51an and -eofi%o Cendana attestin to such donation< that 7uana cou%d va%id%. conve. the propert. to the Spouses Cereno at the ti1e of the sa%e 4ecause she was the owner< and that the. have 4een in pu4%ic and uninterrupted possession of the disputed %ot since its ac6uisition and have 4een pa.in the rea%t. ta:es due thereon* As affir1ative defense# respondents contended that petitioners0 ri hts over the propert. were a%read. 4arred 4. the statute of %i1itations* After tria%# the R-C rendered its Decision, dated Nove14er 1$# !$$$# the dispositive portion of which reads2
cra2nad

@HEREAORE# >ud 1ent is here4. rendered in favor of the p%aintiffs and a ainst the defendants2 &a' Dec%arin as nu%% and void the Deed of A4so%ute Sa%e< -a: Dec%aration Nos* !1!+; for ?ot 8/88 B !1!+, for ?ot 8//, in the na1es of 7uanito Cereno and So%edad de )u51an< &4' Orderin the defendants &1' to reconve. the propert. in 6uestion to the p%aintiffs and to peacefu%%. surrender the possession of the pre1ises to the p%aintiffs< and &!' to pa. p%aintiffs %iti ation e:penses in the a1ount of 31$#$$$*$$* SO ORDERED*1$
cra

-he R-C found that 7uana and her chi%dren of the second nuptia% 4ui%t their house on the disputed propert. 4. to%erance of 3a4%os0 chi%dren of the first 1arria e< that 7uana a%one so%d the propert. to respondents Spouses Cereno and such sa%e was not va%id 4ecause she was not the owner of the propert. at the ti1e she so%d the sa1e< that the estate of 3a4%o has not 4een sett%ed a1on the heirs since the propert. was sti%% in the na1e of 3a4%o at the ti1e 7uana so%d the sa1e< that respondents Spouses Cereno0s c%ai1 that the propert. was donated to 7uana 4. 3a4%o 4. wa. of donation propter nuptias was not supported 4. evidence< that 3a4%o cou%d not have donated the propert. to 7uana 4ecause 3a4%o0s chi%dren were the %e a% heirs of his first wife# and have ri hts and interests over the propert.* -he R-C found the 7oint Affidavit dated 7anuar. !+# 1,=$ e:ecuted 4. A%fredo# 3a4%o0s son 4. first 1arria e# and -eofi%o Cendana# a for1er Chief of 3o%ice of 9an a%dan# 3an asinan# attestin that the donationpropter nuptias e:ecuted 4. 3a4%o in favor of 7uana was %ost durin the 7apanese occupation was inconse6uentia%# since it cannot su4stitute for the donation which va%idit. was hi h%.

6uestiona4%e< that petitioners were a4%e to prove that the propert. was the con>u a% propert. of 3a4%o and his first wife which has not 4een divided 4etween 3a4%o and his chi%dren of the first nuptia%* On appea%# the CA rendered its assai%ed Decision# the dispositive portion of which reads as fo%%ows2
cra2nad

@HEREAORE# pre1ises considered# we here4. )RAN- the appea%* -he assai%ed decision dated Nove14er 1$# !$$$# of the Re iona% -ria% Court &R-C'# Branch "1# Da upan Cit.# in Civi% Case No* ,,( $!,1$(D is conse6uent%. REVERSED and SE- ASIDE* Costs a ainst the p%aintiffs(appe%%ees* SO ORDERED*11
cra

@hi%e the CA a reed with the findin s of the R-C that there was no evidence that 3a4%o undertook a partition of the properties of his first 1arria e 4efore he contracted his second 1arria e and that the 7oint Affidavit dated 7anuar. !+# 1,=$ cou%d not 4e considered as conc%usive proof of the transfer of the propert. 4. 3a4%o to 7uana# it was not a sufficient 4asis for 7uana to va%id%. transfer the propert. to respondent Spouses Cereno# however# the CA ave pro4ative va%ue to the >oint affidavit as it was e:ecuted %on 4efore the present controvers. arose* -he CA found that the >oint affidavit was e:ecuted 4. A%fredo# one of 3a4%o0s chi%dren 4. his first 1arria e who was necessari%. affected 4. the c%ai1ed donation propter nuptias and who ou ht to know the facts attested to< that the affidavit was evidence of the 4asis of 7uana0s own ood faith 4e%ief that the propert. was hers to dispose of when she so%d it to respondents Spouses Cereno< that the sa1e affidavit can a%so 4e the 4asis of respondents Spouses Cereno0s ood faith 4e%ief that 7uana# who had undisputa4%. 4een in possession of the disputed propert. at the ti1e of the sa%e# was the owner and cou%d transfer the propert. to the1 4. sa%e* -he CA a%so ave pro4ative va%ue to the deed of sa%e e:ecuted 4. 7uana in favor of respondents Spouses Cereno as it is sti%% an evidence of the fact of transaction 4etween 7uana and respondents Spouses Cereno for the sa%e of the disputed propert.* -he CA found that the deed of sa%e and the >oint affidavit assu1ed reat i1portance on the issue of prescription* -he CA found that 7uana possessed the propert. in the concept of an owner# which is a sufficient 4asis for the 4e%ief that 7uana was the owner of the propert. she conve.ed 4. sa%e and respondents Spouses Cereno had the ood faith that ac6uisition 4. prescription re6uires when the. 4eca1e the purchasers in the contract of sa%e with her * -he CA further stated that a sa%e# coup%ed with the de%iver. of the propert. so%d# is one of the reco ni5ed 1odes of ac6uirin ownership of rea% propert. and that respondents Spouses Cereno i11ediate%. took possession of the propert. which showed that respondent Spouses Cereno have >ust tit%e to the propert.* -he CA further found that respondents Spouses Cereno are in peacefu% possession of the propert. for !, .ears and# thus# have satisfied the ten(.ear period of open# pu4%ic and adverse possession in the concept of an owner that the %aw on prescription re6uires* -he CA added that petitioners are now 4arred 4. %aches fro1 c%ai1in ownership of the disputed propert. as the. have 4een ne %i ent in assertin their ri hts* 3etitioners0 1otion for reconsideration was denied in a Reso%ution dated Apri% !,# !$$/* 3etitioners raise the fo%%owin issues for our consideration2 @HE-HER -HE COCR- OA A33EA?S ERRED IN REVERSIN) -HE DECISION OA -HE RE)IONA? -RIA? COCR-# BRANCH "1# DA)C3AN CI-D* @HE-HER -HE COCR- OA A33EA?S ERRED IN DISRE)ARDIN) -HE NA-CRE OA -HE 3RO3ER-D IN ISSCE @HEN I- RENDERED I-S DECISION*

@HE-HER ?ACHESE3RESCRI3-ION BARRED HEREIN 3E-I-IONERS ARO9 C?AI9IN) -HEIR RI)H-AC? SHARE IN -HE 3RO3ER-D IN ISSCE*1! 3etitioners contend that since the CA and the R-C found that there was no partition of the propert. and no va%id donation propter nuptias was 1ade 4. 3a4%o to 7uana# the ru%e on co(ownership a1on 3a4%o0s heirs shou%d overn the propert.< that when 7uana so%d the propert. to respondents Cerenos# the ri hts of petitioners as co(owners shou%d not have 4een affected< that the CA0s findin that the >oint affidavit attestin to the donation propter nuptiascan 4e the 4asis of a 4e%ief in ood faith that 7uana was the owner of the disputed propert. is erroneous# since 7uana had know%ed e fro1 the ti1e she ot 1arried to 3a4%o that the propert. was ac6uired durin the %atter0s first 1arria e< that respondents Spouses Cereno cou%d not 4e considered in ood faith since So%edad is the dau hter of 7uana with her 1arria e to 3a4%o and cou%d not 4e considered a third part. to the dispute without know%ed e of the nature of the propert.< that 4ein co(owners# neither prescription nor %aches can 4e used a ainst the1 to divest the1 of their propert. ri hts* In their Co11ent# respondents ar ue that 7uana in her own ri ht had ac6uired the propert. 4. prescription< that the CA correct%. considered respondents0 !, .ears of actua% and peacefu% possession of the propert. aside fro1 their purchase of the propert. fro1 7uana in findin the1 as the true owners* 3etitioners and respondents su41itted their respective 1e1oranda* -he petition has no 1erit* @e a ree with the CA that respondents have ac6uired the disputed propert. 4. ac6uisitive prescription* 3rescription is another 1ode of ac6uirin ownership and other rea% ri hts over i11ova4%e propert.*18 It is concerned with %apse of ti1e in the 1anner and under conditions %aid down 4. %aw# na1e%.# that the possession shou%d 4e in the concept of an owner# pu4%ic# peacefu%# uninterrupted and adverse*1" 3ossession is open when it is patent# visi4%e# apparent# notorious and not c%andestine* 1/ It is continuous when uninterrupted# un4roken and not inter1ittent or occasiona%< 1+ e:c%usive when the adverse possessor can show e:c%usive do1inion over the %and and an appropriation of it to his own use and 4enefit< and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is enera%%. known and ta%ked of 4. the pu4%ic or the peop%e in the nei h4orhood* 1= -he part. who asserts ownership 4. adverse possession 1ust prove the presence of the essentia% e%e1ents of ac6uisitive prescription* 1;
cra

Ac6uisitive prescription of rea% ri hts 1a. 4e ordinar. or e:traordinar.* 1, Ordinar. ac6uisitive prescription re6uires possession in ood faith and with >ust tit%e for ten .ears* !$ In e:traordinar. prescription# ownership and other rea% ri hts over i11ova4%e propert. are ac6uired throu h uninterrupted adverse possession for thirt. .ears without need of tit%e or of ood faith* !1
cra

-he ood faith of the possessor consists in the reasona4%e 4e%ief that the person fro1 who1 he received the thin was the owner thereof# and cou%d trans1it his ownership* !! Aor purposes of prescription# there is >ust tit%e when the adverse c%ai1ant ca1e into possession of the propert. throu h one of the 1odes reco ni5ed 4. %aw for the ac6uisition of ownership or other rea% ri hts# 4ut the rantor was not the owner or cou%d not trans1it an. ri ht* !8
cra

Records show that as ear%. as 1,=$# when the propert. was so%d 4. 7uana to respondents Spouses Cereno# the %atter i11ediate%. took possession of the propert.* Since then# respondents possessed the propert. continuous%.# open%.# peacefu%%.# in the concept of an owner# e:c%usive%. and in ood faith with >ust tit%e# to the e:c%usion of the petitioners and their predecessors(in(interest unti% the fi%in of the co1p%aint in 1,,, which is the su4>ect of this present petition* Nota4%.# the propert. was traversed 4. a barangay road# thus# it was divided into two %ots* -he house of respondents is %ocated on the eastern part of the road# whi%e the %ot on the western part of the road

was p%anted to fruit( 4earin trees 4. Respondents*!" It was ad1itted 4. petitioners that the. saw the house of respondents constructed on the %ot and .et never 6uestioned the sa1e* !/ It was a%so esta4%ished that respondents are the ones atherin the fruits of the %and and en>o.in the sa1e !+ to the e:c%usion of petitioners and .et the %atter never prevented the1 fro1 doin so* In fact# whi%e petitioners %earned of the sa%e of the propert. 4. 7uana to the Spouses Cereno in 1,;$# the. never took an. action to protect whatever ri hts the. have over the propert. nor raised an. o4>ection on respondents0 possession of the propert.* 3etitioners0 inaction is a ravated 4. the fact that petitioners >ust %ive a 1ere 1$$ 1eters awa. fro1 the propert.* !=
cra

9oreover# i11ediate%. after the sa%e of the propert. to the Spouses Cereno# the. dec%ared the propert. in their na1es for ta:ation purposes!; and since then re%i ious%. paid the ta:es!, due on the propert.* 3etitioners ad1itted that the. knew that the Spouses Cerenos are the ones pa.in the ta:es<8$ .et# the. never cha%%en ed the sa1e for a %on period of ti1e which c%ear%. esta4%ishes respondents0 c%ai1 as owners of the propert.* 7urisprudence is c%ear that a%thou h ta: dec%arations or rea%t. ta: pa.1ents of propert. are not conc%usive evidence of ownership# neverthe%ess# the. are ood indicia of possession in the concept of owner# for no one in his ri ht 1ind wou%d 4e pa.in ta:es for a propert. that is not in his actua% or at %east constructive possession* 81 -he. constitute at %east proof that the ho%der has a c%ai1 of tit%e over the propert.* 8! As is we%% known# the pa.1ent of ta:es# coup%ed with actua% possession of the %and covered 4. the ta: dec%aration# stron %. supports a c%ai1 of ownership*88
cra

Respondent 7uanito a%so e:ercised do1inion over the propert. 4. 1ort a in the sa1e to 9anaoa Rura% Bank in 1,,"8" and the 1ort a e was cance%%ed on%. in 7anuar. 1,,,* 8/
cra

@hi%e there is a 6uestion re ardin the a%%e ed donation propter nuptias at the ti1e 7uana e:ecuted the deed of sa%e in favor of the Spouses Cereno in 1,=$# however# the re6uire1ent of >ust tit%e and ood faith are sti%% satisfied in this case* As the CA said2
cra2nad

: : : F-Ghe >oint affidavit that the defendants(appe%%ants presented# attestin to the donation propter nuptias of the disputed propert. 4. 3a4%o to 7uana# can 4e the 4asis of the 4e%ief in ood faith that 7uana was the owner of the disputed propert.* Re%ated to this# it is undisputed that 3a4%o and 7uana had %ived in the disputed propert. fro1 the ti1e of their 1arria e in 1,1,# and 7uana continued to %ive and to possess this propert. in the concept of an owner fro1 the ti1e of 3a4%o0s death in 1,8+ up to the ti1e she so%d it to spouses Cereno in 1,=$* -hese circu1stances# in our view# are sufficient 4ases for the 4e%ief that 7uana was the owner of the propert. she conve.ed 4. sa%e# and %eave us convinced that the spouses Cereno had the H ood faithH that ac6uisition 4. prescription re6uires when the. 4eca1e the purchasers in the contract of sa%e with 7uana* 8+
cra

Nota4%.# one of the affiants in the >oint affidavit which was e:ecuted in 1,=$ was A%fredo# 3a4%o0s son 4. his first 1arria e# where he attested that the propert. was iven 4. his father 3a4%o to 7uana 4. donation propter nuptias* Not one a1on A%fredo0s chi%dren had ever co1e out to assai% the va%idit. of the affidavit e:ecuted 4. their father* In fact# not one of A%fredo0s heirs >oined petitioners in this case*8= 9oreover# not one a1on the chi%dren of the first 1arria e when the. were sti%% a%ive ever 1ade a c%ai1 on their successiona% ri hts over the propert. 4. askin for its partition* Such >oint affidavit cou%d constitute a %e a% 4asis for 7uana0s adverse and e:c%usive character of the possession of the propert.8; and wou%d show the Spouses Cereno0s ood faith 4e%ief that 7uana was the owner of the propert.* -hus# when petitioners fi%ed the instant case# 1ore than !, .ears had a%read. e%apsed# thus# the ten(.ear period for ac6uisitive prescription has a%read. 4een satisfied* @e %ikewise a ree with the CA when it found that petitioners are ui%t. of %aches that wou%d 4ar the1 fro1 4e%ated%. assertin their c%ai1* ?aches is defined as the fai%ure to assert a ri ht for an unreasona4%e and une:p%ained %en th of ti1e# warrantin a presu1ption that the part. entit%ed to assert it has either a4andoned or dec%ined to assert it* -his e6uita4%e defense is 4ased upon rounds of pu4%ic po%ic.# which re6uires the discoura e1ent of sta%e c%ai1s for the peace of societ.* 8,
cra

7uana so%d the propert. to the Spouses Cereno in 1,=$ and since then have possessed the propert. peacefu%%. and pu4%ic%. without an. opposition fro1 petitioners* @hi%e petitioners c%ai1 that the. knew a4out the sa%e on%. in 1,;$ .et the. did not take an. action to recover the sa1e and waited unti% 1,,, to fi%e a suit without offerin an. e:cuse for such de%a.* Records do not show an. >ustifia4%e reason for petitioners0 inaction for a %on ti1e in assertin whatever ri hts the. have over the propert. iven the pu4%icit. of respondents0 conduct as owners of the propert.* @HEREAORE# the petition is "NI" * -he Decision dated Au ust !"# !$$" and the Reso%ution dated Apri% !,# !$$/ of the Court of Appea%s in CA()*R* CV No* +,""+ are A!!IRM" * SO OR "R" *