Title
Supreme Court
Bogo-Medellin Milling Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 124699
Decision Date
Jul 31, 2003
Heirs of Valdez sued Bomedco for land recovery after discovering its unauthorized claim; SC ruled Bomedco lacked ownership, ordered vacating, and awarded attorney’s fees.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 124699)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Pre-1935 Background
    • In 1929, Feliciana Santillan granted Bogo-Medellin Milling Co., Inc. (Bomedco) a 30-year railroad right of way (ROW) over her Dayhagon, Medellin, Cebu lands; tracks were used to haul sugarcane to the mill.
    • On December 9, 1935, Santillan sold to Magdaleno Valdez, Sr. an unregistered one-hectare, 34-are, 16-centare parcel traversed by those tracks; Valdez, Sr. took possession and declared the land for tax purposes in his name.
  • Post-Sale Events and Cadastral Registration
    • Upon Valdez, Sr.’s death in 1948, his heirs (Sergio Valdez, Angelina Valdez-Novabos, Teresita Argawanon-Mangubat and Daylinda Argawanon-Melendres) inherited the property.
    • In 1965 cadastral survey, the land was divided into Lots 953, 954 and 955; Lots 953 and 955 remained in the heirs’ names, while Lot 954 (the narrow strip with the tracks) was registered and taxed in Bomedco’s name.
  • Discovery and Initial Litigation
    • In 1989, the heirs learned of Bomedco’s claim over Lot 954 through the Bureau of Lands; their demands for explanation and compensation went unanswered.
    • On June 8, 1989, the heirs filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City a “Complaint for Payment of Compensation and/or Recovery of Possession of Real Property and Damages with Application for Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction” against Bomedco, alleging expiration in 1959 of the original ROW grant and demanding rightful ownership or compensation.

Issues:

  • Whether Bomedco acquired ownership of Lot 954 by extraordinary acquisitive prescription (Art. 1137, Civil Code).
  • Whether Bomedco acquired ownership or merely an easement by ordinary prescription (Art. 620, Civil Code).
  • Whether the heirs’ claims are barred by laches.
  • Whether the heirs are entitled to recovery of possession, compensation, and attorney’s fees.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.