G.R. No. 131803 - Marcelo vs. Court of Appeals

The petitioners, heirs of the deceased Jose Marcelo and his spouse Sotera Paulino-Marcelo, initiated an action in 1982 at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan to recover a portion of unregistered, untitled land in Sta. Lucia, Angat, Bulacan.
The complaint, later amended in 1983, alleged that two parcels of land—documented under Tax Declarations Nos. 2880 and 2882 and historically in possession since 1939—had been partially encroached upon by the respondents, Fernando Cruz and Servando Flores.
The disputed area was described as part of the “parang” (pasture land), with measurements cited as 7,540 square meters (with some documents also mentioning 7,856 square meters), which had allegedly been incorporated without the plaintiffs’ consent.

Testimony by Gabriela Angeles that verified continuous possession since 1939 by the original owners;
A relocation survey plan of Lot 3096 and Lot 3098 (Tax Declaration No. 2882) indicating the encroached area;
Documentary evidence showing that after the death of Jose Marcelo, the discovery in 1967 of an encroachment led to the identification of the area in dispute.

The disputed portion was part of a lot acquired by respondent Fernando Cruz from the heirs of Jorge Sarmiento through an extrajudicial partition with sale dated November 19, 1960;
This deed of sale encompassed both the “palayero” (riceland) of 6,000 square meters and the “parang” (pasture land) of 7,856 square meters;
The entire parcel, measuring 13,856 square meters, subsequently was sold by Cruz to respondent Servando Flores via a deed dated November 3, 1968, after which Flores took possession, cultivated, and paid realty taxes on it.

Holding that the “parang” encroached by respondents was originally part of the petitioners’ property, as evidenced by tax declarations and the survey plan;
Ordering the respondents to return ownership and possession of the 7,540 square meters (the disputed “parang”) to the petitioners;
Awarding attorney’s fees of P5,000.00 and dismissing the counterclaim due to a lack of factual and legal basis.

The respondents appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision based on the contention that respondent Flores had acquired ownership of the entire lot, including the disputed area, by ordinary acquisitive prescription through:

Taking possession in good faith and with just title;
Exercising continuous, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession for almost 14 years before the petitioners commenced their complaint.

The petitioners sought to reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision by arguing that:

The disputed portion of 7,540 square meters was not lawfully sold to respondent Cruz since the sale document—“Kasulatan ng Partisyon sa Labas ng Hukuman at Bilihang Patuluyan”—pertained only to the 6,000 square meter “palayero”;
The evidence of possession and the factual findings of the trial court were disregarded by the appellate court in its own “perception of the facts.”

The original extrajudicial partition clearly intended to cover both the riceland and the pasture land;
Respondent Cruz had subsequently declared and had a tax declaration covering the entire 13,856 square meters;
Respondent Flores’s possession, following the sale, met all the requisites for ordinary acquisitive prescription.

Whether respondent Flores’s possession of the entire parcel, including the disputed “parang,” qualifies as possession “in the concept of an owner” (i.e., public, peaceful, and uninterrupted) required for the ripening of ownership by ordinary acquisitive prescription.
Determination of whether good faith and just title, as mandatory elements of ordinary prescription, were present in the conveyance and subsequent possession by Flores.

Whether the “Kasulatan ng Partisyon sa Labas ng Hukuman at Bilihang Patuluyan” executed by the Sarmientos and Engracia de la Cruz included both the “palayero” (riceland) and the “parang” (pasture land), as asserted by respondents, or solely the riceland, as argued by the petitioners.
The significance of the tax declarations and subsequent survey evidence in establishing the boundaries and ownership interests of the disputed lands.

Whether the appellate court’s findings which relied on documentary and testimonial evidence, thereby reaching the conclusion of valid acquisitive prescription, should override the earlier trial court decision favoring the petitioners.
The impact of the alleged violence or irregular possession by respondent Cruz on the validity of respondent Flores’s subsequent possession and title.