G.R. No. L-4641 - Seminary of San Carlos vs. Municipality of Cebu

The case involves a land registration dispute between the Seminary of San Carlos (petitioner/appellee) and the Municipality of Cebu (opponent/appellant).
The seminary’s claim to ownership is based on a royal cession from the King of Spain and further supported by muniments of title (Exhibits E and F) which contain detailed inventories and descriptions of the property.
The municipality contests the seminary’s title by asserting that, even if the seminary’s documents are correct, the land does not extend into or include any portion of the public plaza since a well-defined boundary (originally a wall, later an iron fence) separates the church property from the plaza.

Exhibit E, dated November 12, 1783, describes a “huerta grande” adjacent to the church with dimensions of 49 Spanish brazas in length by 38 Spanish brazas in width, indicating a large parcel.
Exhibit F, dated May 4, 1784, describes two contiguous vacant plots each said to measure 25 brazas square, with boundaries defined relative to the church, public plaza, and other adjoining properties.

The plan Exhibit J provided by the seminary illustrates the location of the land relative to the church building and the iron fence.
The dispute focuses on reconciling these measurements: arithmetic shows that if the petitioner’s larger dimensions were accurate, the area would far exceed the space between the church and the iron fence.

The city contends that the actual boundary of the seminary’s property is demarcated by the iron fence (line A-B), which closely abuts the church building at varying distances (as narrow as less than 4 meters in some places).
The issue arises whether the land described in the petitioner’s exhibits, as measured from the iron fence or from the irregular, broken line of the church wall, truly includes a portion of the public plaza.
Detailed arithmetic computation comparing the potential maximum area (1,835.4 square meters) between the church and the iron fence versus the measurements in the seminary’s title documents plays a crucial role in establishing that the disputed land must logically extend beyond the fence into the plaza.

The municipality asserts that its continuous possession of the land, allegedly adverse since 1863, has ripened into a title by prescription under the civil law.
Evidence showed that from 1863 until 1890, the possession was initiated and maintained by the political and military governor of Cebu and later by the ayuntamiento.
A critical document, Exhibit K, executed on June 8, 1869, by political and military governor Joaquin Monet, was introduced. This document certifies the dedication of part of the plaza area to the seminary “as long as the promenade which embellishes the town exists as such,” thereby characterizing the city’s possession as permissive rather than adverse.

Whether the land described in the seminary’s exhibits and depicted in the plan (Exhibit J) truly extends beyond the iron fence to include a portion of the public plaza.
Determining if the discrepancy between the dimensions stated in the various documents can be resolved by proper measurement from either the iron fence or the irregular church wall.

Whether the seminary’s title, derived from a historic royal cession and supported by early colonial documents (Exhibits E and F), remains conclusive despite the land’s encroachment into what the city now occupies as a public plaza.
Whether the presence of a well-defined boundary (the iron fence) strictly limits the seminary’s property or if the land area inherently exceeds that boundary.

Whether the city’s possession of the disputed land gives rise to a prescriptive title through adverse possession.
The effect of Exhibit K on the city’s claim, particularly whether it renders the possession permissive and therefore legally incapable of supporting a prescriptive title claim.

The genuineness of the documents, especially Exhibit K, including the signature of Joaquin Monet and his status as political and military governor at the time of its execution.
The implications of the authenticated document on interrupting or invalidating the city’s claim of adverse possession.