G.R. No. L-1802 - Reyes vs. Caltex , Inc.

The plaintiff, Fabiana Arriola y Cabrera, acts as the administratrix of the estate of her late mother, Simona Cabrera, and brings an action of ejectment for recovery of a parcel of land.
The defendant, Carolina Gomez de la Serna, asserts her ownership and that of her minor children, based on inheritance from her deceased husband, Jose M. Perez Rubio, and a contract of distribution among his heirs.

The property in dispute is situated in the city of Manila, at the corner of Calles San Luis and Nueva.
The plaintiff relies on witness testimony that her mother possessed the land until approximately 1882, after which an order from the court ousted her, transferring possession to Jose M. Perez Rubio.

Jose M. Perez Rubio is shown to have acquired title by a conveyance executed by the Court of Quiapo on December 21, 1881.
Following the conveyance, Rubio took immediate possession of the property, a possession that continued uninterrupted and publicly under claim of ownership up to the commencement of this action.

The plaintiff contends that Rubio’s possession was not in good faith, citing that after the conveyance, an opponent of Rubio sought a rehearing that led to the suspension of the court order which underpinned said conveyance.
It was argued that because the order was effectively annulled by suspension and the case reopened, Rubio’s title could be considered flawed, and his continued possession might be tainted by bad faith, especially given his professional background as a lawyer.

The defendant, however, bases her claim not solely on her husband’s possession but on her own personal occupancy and possession of the land since February 15, 1896.
Her possession has been characterized as public, peaceful, uninterrupted, and in good faith, under a proper title obtained through inheritance and the recognized contract of distribution among Rubio’s heirs.

Was the possession of the land by Jose M. Perez Rubio tainted by bad faith due to the alleged suspension and reopening of the case affecting his original title?
Did any alleged defects in Rubio’s title automatically tarnish the good faith possession of the defendant who inherited the land?

Can the defendant’s uninterrupted possession and personal occupancy of the property for more than 10 years, under good faith and with what is considered a proper title, overcome any potential defects in her husband’s title?
Is the inheritance sufficient to protect the defendant from any imputed bad faith associated with the actions of her husband?

Does the defendant’s possession meet the requirements of prescription under Article 1957 of the Civil Code, which calls for 10 years of possession with good faith and proper title?
Does the uninterrupted nature of her occupancy from February 15, 1896, until the filing of the action on October 17, 1908, legally establish ownership of the land?