G.R. No. L-2176 - Arboso vs. Andrade

Sotera Arboso was the owner of the disputed parcel of land as early as 1917, with the land being declared in her name for tax purposes.
Roman Budak administered the property on her behalf.
After Sotera Arboso’s death in 1920, her children continued to receive the products (coconuts) of the land, with the deliveries executed by Roman Budak.

In 1920, Roman Budak executed an affidavit declaring himself the owner of the land, allegedly having acquired it by inheritance from Sotera Arboso.
Based on this affidavit, the land was declared in Budak’s name for tax purposes.
In December 1926, Budak sold the land to Doroteo Andrade, the defendant, despite having warned Andrade that he was not the true owner.
Andrade subsequently declared the land in his own name and paid the corresponding taxes up to 1946.

In 1927, upon learning of the sale, the heirs of Sotera Arboso (including plaintiff Consolacion Arboso) re-entered the land to collect coconuts.
They were accused of theft by Andrade; however, the case was dismissed as the controversy was deemed civil rather than criminal in nature.
In 1928, the heirs filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Leyte seeking to recover ownership, which was dismissed on May 25, 1932, due to lack of interest.

Despite the dismissal of their recovery suit, the Arboso heirs intermittently re-entered the land.
On September 29, 1947, Andrade initiated an ejectment action against the heirs before the Justice of the Peace Court of Pastrana, Leyte, obtaining a judgment ordering the heirs to refrain from interfering with his possession.
Continued intermittent entries by the heirs led Andrade in 1946 to take decisive measures to firmly maintain his control over the land.
Finally, Consolacion Arboso filed the present action, claiming ownership of the land based on her status as one of Sotera Arboso’s children.

Whether Doroteo Andrade, who had taken possession of the land in 1926, acquired ownership by prescription given the facts of the case.

Whether the interventions and legal actions initiated by the Arboso heirs (such as the dismissed recovery suit and subsequent ejectment proceedings) qualify as interruptions in Andrade’s possession.
The applicability of the provisions on prescription under the old Civil Code, as well as their compatibility with the transitional provisions of the new Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure.