Title
Arboso vs. Andrade
Case
G.R. No. L-2176
Decision Date
Dec 29, 1950
Heirs of Sotera Arboso contested Doroteo Andrade's ownership of land sold by Roman Budak; Supreme Court ruled Andrade acquired title by prescription due to uninterrupted possession.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2176)

Factual Background

Sotera Arboso originally owned the parcel of land, and following her death in 1920, her children continued to benefit from it through Roman Budak, who managed the land. In 1920, Budak falsely claimed ownership, stating he inherited the land from Sotera, and subsequently had the land registered in his name for tax purposes. His sale of the land to Doroteo Andrade in 1926 followed despite warnings of his lack of true ownership. Andrade then declared the property and paid taxes until 1946. Following the sale, Arboso’s heirs attempted to reclaim the land through various legal means, but all actions ultimately failed.

Legal Actions and Controversies

Subsequent to the sale, the Arboso heirs attempted to assert their ownership by gathering coconuts from the land, actions which led to Andrade filing for ejectment against them in 1947. The ejectment was ruled in favor of Andrade, effectively ordering the Arboso heirs to desist from interfering with Andrade’s possession. Despite these rulings, the Arboso heirs continued to enter the land, inciting further disputes culminating in Consolacion Arboso's present legal action against Andrade.

Legal Issue

The primary legal issue is whether Doroteo Andrade acquired ownership of the land by prescription, given the historical context of the property’s possession.

Applicable Law on Prescription

The legal framework governing prescription, particularly the Civil Code articles addressing possession, was invoked in the analysis. Interruption of possession can occur through natural or civil means, with civil interruption caused by legal actions against the possessor. However, if a suit does not yield a favorable judgment for the plaintiff, it does not toll the period for acquiring ownership by prescription. The court referenced numerous authorities confirming that an unsuccessful suit does not interrupt the continuity of adverse possession.

Conclusion on Ownership by Prescription

Evaluating the case facts against the framework of ownership by prescription, the court concluded that Andrade indeed acquired ownership of the land by adverse possession. The Arboso heirs’ various attempts to recover the propert

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.