www.howardscasedigests.webs.

com

G.R. No. L-32694: Fidel Silvestre vs Court of Appeals & Rufino Dimson
16 July 1982, 115 scra 63
Execution of Compromiso de Venta is not tantamount to “Possession”

In 1956, Silvestre filed for a homestead application for a parcel of land he’s been occupying
(since 1927) in Hermosa, Bataan. In December 1956, he was issued a Torrens title. He began
paying realty taxes in 1957. In 1959, Dimson filed for an adverse claim over the same parcel of
land. He said that the land could not be the subject of homestead patent as it was already a
private property even before World War II.

Dimson, who also owns the lots adjoining the disputed property, argued that the land was
actually adjudicated to spouses Batungbakal through a cadastral proceeding; that in 1927,
Batungbakal, through a “Compromiso de Venta” conveyed ownership to Dimson; that Dimson
has since paid realty taxes; that title was never issued in his name due to the outbreak of war.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Compromiso entered into by Batungbakal and Dimson conveyed
ownership to Dimson.

HELD: No. The alleged execution in 1927 of the Escritura of "Compromiso de Venta" in favor of
Dimson by the Batungbakal spouses was not tantamount to "possession". First of all, there was
only an allegation that a Compromiso was established. But even if there actually was a
Compromiso, Dimson should have made actual possession. If Dimson had been in possession,
then he could have first asserted his alleged ownership and possession and waited for Silvestre
to controvert his possession and seek recovery of the land, instead of belatedly suing to annul
Silvestre's Torrens title and to recover actual damages.

This is further bolstered by the fact that Dimson started paying taxes on the land only in 1958
apparently in preparation for his suit contrary to his allegation in his complaint that he had
allegedly paid all the real estate taxes thereon before World War II (no evidence shown to prove
so).

Dimson also failed to show that his predecessors-in-interest (the Batungbakals) were the actual
owner of the disputed land. He said that Batungbakal acquired the property through a cadastral
proceeding but he never showed any proof of such decree granting Batungbakal title over the
disputed land. In this regard, assuming that there was a transaction between Dimson and
Batungbakal, the property could not have been conveyed in favor of Dimson due to the fact that
Batungbakal was not the owner of the and.