Title
Austria vs. Laurel
Case
R-CA-No. 9871
Decision Date
Jan 31, 1949
A 4,360-sqm lot in Talisay, Batangas, co-owned by Juana and Romualdo Laurel, was claimed exclusively by Romualdo’s heirs through adverse possession. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, upholding acquisitive prescription due to open, public, and continuous possession for over 10 years, barring the plaintiff’s partition claim.
Font Size:

Case Digest (R-CA-No. 9871)

Facts:

  1. Subject Property: The case involves the partition of a 4,360-square-meter lot located in Talisay, Batangas.
  2. Ownership Origin: The lot originally belonged to Teodoro Laurel, who had seven children: Felipa, Januario, Emiteria, Juana, Barbara, Arcadio, and Romualdo.
  3. Parties Involved:
    • Plaintiff: Antonio Austria, grandson of Juana Laurel.
    • Defendants: Jose E. Laurel, son of Romualdo, and Alfredo Laurel.
  4. Property Assignment: Upon Teodoro Laurel’s death, the property was assigned to Juana and Romualdo as co-owners.
  5. Abandonment: Juana, the plaintiff’s grandmother, stopped occupying her portion of the lot after her house was destroyed during the 1911 Taal Volcano eruption.
  6. Minor’s Guardianship: After Romualdo’s death, the portions previously occupied by Romualdo and Juana were taken over by Victoriano Pamplona (Jose E. Laurel’s tutor) and Barbara Laurel, Romualdo’s sister.
  7. Judicial Transfer: In 1921, Jose E. Laurel, upon reaching the age of majority, received the property from his tutor by judicial order.
  8. Exclusive Claim: Jose E. Laurel openly and publicly claimed exclusive ownership of the lot, planting fruit trees and building a house on it.
  9. Plaintiff’s Delay: The plaintiff filed the partition claim on October 12, 1939, nearly 17 years after Jose E. Laurel began exercising exclusive possession.
  10. Defense of Prescription: The defendants raised acquisitive prescription as a defense, claiming open, public, continuous, and adverse possession of the property for over 10 years.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Acquisitive Prescription: Under Article 111 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 10 years of adverse possession by a person claiming ownership, if open, public, continuous, and exclusive, confers a perfect title to the possessor.
  2. Adverse Possession: Jose E. Laurel’s possession of the property was open, public, continuous, and adverse since 1921, when he took control of the property after being released from guardianship. His planting of fruit trees, construction of a house, and public declaration of exclusive ownership demonstrated adverse possession.
  3. Co-Owner Exception: While prescription generally does not apply between co-heirs or co-owners, it becomes valid when a co-owner explicitly and adversely asserts exclusive ownership over the property for the required period. Jose E. Laurel’s actions met this criterion.
  4. Plaintiff’s Delay: The plaintiff’s failure to act for nearly 17 years further strengthened the defendants’ claim of prescription.
  5. Precedent: The Court cited Ramos v. Ramos and other jurisprudence, reaffirming that acquisitive prescription applies even among co-heirs when adverse possession is clearly established.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.