Case Summary (G.R. No. 124699)
Cadastral Registration and Partition
Unbeknownst to his heirs, Bomedco registered the narrow middle strip (Lot 954) containing the tracks during the 1965 cadastral survey. The remaining portions (Lots 953 and 955) remained in the heirs’ names.
Emergence of Dispute and Initial Litigation
In 1989, heirs learned of Bomedco’s cadastral claim and demanded justification and compensation. Upon no response, they filed a Complaint for Payment of Compensation and/or Recovery of Possession of Real Property and Damages with Application for Injunction on June 8, 1989.
Trial Court Findings on Ownership and Prescription
The RTC (1991) excluded Bomedco’s 1929 deed copy as inadmissible under Rule 130 § 4. It found Bomedco in good-faith, continuous possession of Lot 954 for over 50 years, constituting acquisitive prescription of a continuous and apparent easement under Civil Code Art. 620, thus awarding Bomedco ownership of the strip.
Appellate Ruling on Scope of Acquired Rights
The CA (1995) held that Bomedco’s use yielded only an easement, not ownership. Possession was in bad faith; extraordinary prescription (Art. 1137) runs 30 years from adverse entry in 1965. Only 24 years elapsed by 1989, so ownership had not ripened. The CA awarded compensation from discovery and P10,000 in attorney’s fees.
Issues on Appeal
Bomedco challenged the CA on two grounds:
- Erroneously reversing the RTC’s dismissal of the heirs’ complaint
- Improperly ordering compensation and attorney’s fees
Analysis of Extraordinary Acquisitive Prescription
The Supreme Court found Bomedco’s possession originated from an easement, not adverse claim. Tax declarations identifying “railroad right of way” evidenced non-ownership. After the 1959 expiration, Bomedco’s use remained by tolerance. No hostile acts converted possession to adverse until the 1965 cadastral filing. Only 24 years had passed by 1989—short of the 30 years required under Art. 1137.
Laches Doctrine Examination
The Court rejected laches. Heirs learned of Bomedco’s claim in 1989 and promptly demanded explanation and filed suit. There was no unreasonable delay after knowledge; all elements of laches were absent.
Nature of Easement and Prescription under Article 620
Bomedc
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 124699)
Facts of the Case
- In December 1935, Magdaleno Valdez, Sr. purchased one hectare, 34 ares, 16 centares of unregistered land in Barrio Dayhagon, Medellin, Cebu (Tax Declaration No. 3935).
- The parcel was already traversed north‐south by Bogo‐Medellin Milling Co., Inc. (“Bomedco”) railroad tracks used to haul sugar cane.
- Valdez, Sr. took possession, declared the property in his name for taxation, and upon his death in 1948 it passed to his heirs.
- Unbeknownst to the heirs, Bomedco caused the middle strip (Cadastral Lot No. 954) to be registered in its name during the 1965 cadastral survey.
- The heirs discovered this adverse claim in 1989, demanded proof of title and compensation, but received no response from Bomedco.
Procedural History
- June 8, 1989: Heirs filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City a complaint for compensation, recovery of real property, damages, and injunction.
- RTC decision (Nov. 27, 1991): Excluded Bomedco’s xeroxed 1929 deed as inadmissible; found Bomedco acquired ownership of the strip by acquisitive prescription of a continuous easement (Art. 620, Civil Code); dismissed heirs’ complaint.
- Court of Appeals decision (Nov. 17, 1995): Reversed RTC; held Bomedco only acquired a right‐of‐way easement, not ownership; found bad faith possession; adverse possession began in 1965 and did not ripen by 1989; awarded compensation and attorney’s fees.
- CA resolution (Mar. 22, 1996): Denied Bomedco’s motion for reconsideration