Case Digest (G.R. No. 124699)
Facts:
In 1929 railroad tracks owned by Bogo-Medellin Milling Co., Inc. traversed a parcel later purchased on December 9, 1935 by Magdaleno Valdez, Sr., which his heirs inherited; the contested middle strip became Cadastral Lot No. 954 and was placed in petitioner’s name in the 1965 cadastral survey. The heirs discovered petitioner’s claim in 1989, filed suit on June 8, 1989; the RTC ruled for petitioner on November 27, 1991, the Court of Appeals reversed on November 17, 1995, and the present appeal to the Supreme Court culminated in the July 31, 2003 decision.Issues:
- Did Bogo-Medellin Milling Co., Inc. acquire ownership of Cadastral Lot No. 954 by extraordinary acquisitive prescription under Article 1137 of the Civil Code or by laches?
- Did Bogo-Medellin Milling Co., Inc. acquire an easement of right of way by prescription under Article 620 of the Civil Code, and are the heirs entitled to compensation and attorney’s fees?
Ruling:
The Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the de Case Digest (G.R. No. 124699)
Facts:
- Parties and procedural posture
- Bogo-Medellin Milling Company, Inc. (petitioner) filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 seeking annulment of the Court of Appeals' decision dated November 17, 1995 and its resolution dated March 2, 1996.
- Private respondents were the heirs of Magdaleno Valdez, Sr. who had filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch IX, on June 8, 1989.
- Original acquisition and physical condition of the property
- On December 9, 1935, Magdaleno Valdez, Sr. purchased an unregistered parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 3935, area one hectare, 34 ares and 16 centares, located in Barrio Dayhagon, Medellin, Cebu, from Feliciana Santillan.
- Prior to the 1935 sale, the entire length of the land was traversed in the middle by railroad tracks owned and used by petitioner for hauling sugar cane to its sugar mill.
- Magdaleno Valdez, Sr. took possession of the property and declared it for tax purposes in his name; he died in 1948 and the heirs inherited the land.
- Cadastral registration and discovery of petitioner's claim
- In the 1965 cadastral survey of Medellin, the entire subject land was divided into Cadastral Lot Nos. 953, 954 and 955.
- Lot Nos. 953 and 955 remained in the name of the heirs, while Lot No. 954 (the narrow strip where the railroad tracks lay) was placed and declared for tax purposes in petitioner’s name.
- The heirs only discovered Bomedco’s claim over Lot No. 954 in 1989 upon inquiry with the Bureau of Lands; their letters of inquiry and demand for compensation were not answered.
- Allegations and cause of action by the heirs
- The heirs filed a "Complaint for Payment of Compensation and/or Recovery of Possession of Real Property and Damages with Application for Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction" on June 8, 1989.
- They alleged that Santillan had granted petitioner a railroad right of way in 1929 for thirty years which expired circa 1959; they tolerated continued use thereafter.
- Evidence presented at trial
- Heirs offered an original deed of sale dated December 9, 1935 (Spanish), several original real estate tax receipts including 1922 and 1963 receipts, and testimony of Magdaleno Valdez, Jr.
- Petitioner relied on a Deed of Sale dated March 18, 1929 (xerox copy), seven real estate tax receipts (1930–1985), a 1929 survey plan, survey notification card, lot data computation, cadastral map, and testimony of geodetic engineers Vicente Basmayor and Rafaela A. Belleza.
- Trial court ruling
- The Regional Trial Court, in a decision dated November 27, 1991, rejected petitioner’s 1929 deed because only a xerox copy was introduced and the original was not presented in violation of Section 4, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
- The RTC nonetheless found that petitioner had been in continuous and apparent possession in good faith for more than ten years and thus had acquired ownership by acquisitive prescription under Article 620, Civil Code; it dismissed the heirs' complaint.
- Court of Appeals ruling
- The Court of Appeals, in its decision dated November 17, 1995, reversed the RTC and held that petitioner did not acquire ownership but only an easement of right of way by unopposed and continuous use under Article 620, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Ownership by extraordinary acquisitive prescription
- Whether Bogo-Medellin Milling Company, Inc. acquired ownership of Cadastral Lot No. 954 by extraordinary acquisitive prescription under Article 1137, Civil Code.
- Laches as a bar to the heirs' action
- Whether laches barred the heirs from asserting their right of possession or claiming compensation.
- Acquisition of easement by prescription
- Whether petitioner acquired an easement of right of way over Lot No. 954 by prescription under Article 620, Civil Code, and whether the easement was continuous and apparent so as to be susceptible of acqu...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)