Case Digest (G.R. No. 153625)
Facts:
Heirs of Marcelino Cabal, represented by Victoria Cabal v. Spouses Lorenzo Cabal and Rosita Cabal, G.R. No. 153625, July 31, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.The disputed property originated from a 4,234‑square‑meter parcel (Lot G) owned by Marcelo Cabal, who died in August 1954. In 1949 Marcelo allowed his son Marcelino to build a house on a portion of Lot G (the southernmost portion of what later became Lot 1‑E), and Marcelino and later his son continuously occupied that area. In 1964 the heirs extrajudicially allotted undivided shares, and later surveys and subdivisions (1976, 1982) produced separate titles and a subdivision plan resulting in TCTs that identified Marcelino’s designated share as Lot G‑1 (TCT No. T‑22656) while the house he had always occupied was later shown as the southernmost portion of Lot 1‑E (TCT No. 43419 issued to Lorenzo in 1993).
Attempts to resurvey and “swap” lots led to an agreement on March 1, 1989, but the resurvey and swapping did not materialize. On August 10, 1994, respondents Spouses Lorenzo and Rosita Cabal filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages against Marcelino in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), alleging bad‑faith improvements on their land. Marcelino answered claiming possession in good faith and acquisitive prescription.
On November 19, 1997 the MTC (Civil Case No. 735) ruled for Marcelino, finding prescription barred plaintiffs’ claim and ordering plaintiffs to relinquish possession and pay damages; the MTC denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration on February 5, 1998. The plaintiffs appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 70, Iba, Zambales (docketed RTC‑1489‑I). On August 10, 2000 the RTC reversed the MTC, holding Marcelino’s possession was in the concept of a co‑owner (thus prescription did not run) and ordering Marcelino to vacate, remove improvements, and pay moral/exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The RTC denied Marcelino’s motion for reconsideration on May 3, 2001.
Marcelino sought review in the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 64729). During the proceedings Marcelino died and his heirs (petitioners here) continued the case. On September 27, 2001 the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in toto, agreeing that Marcelino’s initial good faith diminished after the subdivision survey and that he could not be allowed to hold both his titled lot and the lot he occupied. The CA denied Marcelino’s motion for reconsideration on May 22, 2002.
On June 6, 2002 the heirs of Marcelino, represented by his widow Victoria Cabal, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court assailing the CA decision and resolution. They argued Marcelino never intended to hold both lots, that ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in its factual finding that Marcelino intended to hold both the lot he occupied and his titled lot, thereby losing his good faith?
- Was acquisitive prescription established in favor of Marcelino for the disputed portion?
- What remedy applies to Marcelino’s situation as a builder in good faith and may the Cou...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)