Facts:

The case at hand involves petitioners Gaudencio Ordonez and Generosa Ordonez, and respondents the Honorable Court of Appeals and Monico Ordonez. It revolves around two parcels of unregistered land located in Bo. Todlong, Kawit, Cavite, which were inherited by Monico from their parents. The two parcels are identified as the "looban," a residential lot on which Monico resides, and the "tubigan," a riceland measuring approximately 55,000 square meters, planted with palay. On April 16, 1940, Monico sold the "tubigan" to Gaudencio for P150 as partial payment for a previous debt of P500. This sale was formalized through a duly notarized Deed of Absolute Sale. In addition to this transaction, Monico claimed he verbally mortgaged the "looban" to a third party, Pedro Encarnacion, for a loan of P300, with an agreement for Encarnacion to receive 50% of the harvest and to pay the real estate taxes. Subsequently, at Monico's request, Gaudencio sett

...

Facts:

Parties and Background

• Petitioners: Gaudencio Ordonez and Generosa Ordonez.
• Private Respondent: Monico Ordonez, full-blood brother of Gaudencio.

Property and Transaction Details

• Disputed Properties:
• The "looban" – a residential lot where the ancestral house stands and where private respondent Monico resides.
• The "tubigan" – a riceland with an area of approximately 55,000 square meters planted to palay in Bo. Todlong, Kawit, Cavite.
• Transaction on the "tubigan":
• On April 16, 1940, Monico sold the "tubigan" to Gaudencio for P150.
• The sale also served as payment for a prior indebtedness of P500 owed by Monico to Gaudencio.
• The transfer was evidenced by a duly notarized Deed of Absolute Sale.

Additional Transactions and Possession Issues

• The "looban" and the Mortgage Transaction:
• Private respondent testified that he had verbally mortgaged the "looban" to Pedro Encarnacion as security for a loan of P300.
• The agreed terms included that the creditor would receive 50% of the harvest and be responsible for paying the real estate taxes.
• At Monico’s request, Gaudencio paid P400 to Encarnacion, thereby stepping into the shoes of the creditor.
• Subsequent Occupancy and Use:
• Gaudencio allowed his grandson, Pablito Bernardo, and his wife to build a house on the "looban".

Litigation History

• Filing of the Complaint:
• On July 8, 1983, Monico (private respondent) filed a complaint to quiet title over both parcels of land against Gaudencio.
• He also sought the ejectment of the Bernardo spouses from the "looban".
• Trial Court Decision:
• Rendered on June 17, 1985, in Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch XXI.
• Judgment declared:
• The "looban" belongs exclusively to Monico Ordonez.

ii. The "tubigan" belongs exclusively to Gaudencio Ordonez. iii. The claim for ejectment of the Bernardo spouses was dismissed. iv. All other claims of the parties were dismissed for lack of merit.

Petition for Review and Alleged Errors

• Gaudencio Ordonez, the petitioner, raised several issues in his petition for review:
• The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the "looban" is in the possession of the private respondent.
• It failed to find that Gaudencio acquired the "looban" by acquisitive prescription.
• It did not hold that Monico’s cause of action is barred by prescription or by laches.
• It did not hold that the non-production of a document relating to the transaction between Monico and the late Pedro Encarnacion establishes a presumption adverse to Monico if the document is later produced.

Issue:

Possession of the "Looban"

• Whether the Court erred in ruling that the "looban" is actually in the possession of private respondent Monico, given Gaudencio's purported claim of adverse possession.

Acquisition by Acquisitive Prescription

• Whether the lower courts erred in not finding that petitioner's possession of the “looban” could amount to ownership by acquisitive prescription.

Prescription and Laches

• Whether the lower courts correctly determined that the private respondent’s cause of action was not barred by prescription or laches, thereby negating petitioner’s argument.

Evidentiary Issues on the Mortgage Transaction

• Whether the failure to produce the document evidencing the transaction between private respondent and Pedro Encarnacion entitles the presumption to be adverse to the private respondent.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)