Title
Escritor, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 71283
Decision Date
Nov 12, 1987
Lot No. 2749 ownership dispute: Escritor's heirs, deemed good-faith possessors, not liable for damages; Acuna's claim dismissed by Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 71283)

Factual Background

Lot No. 2749 in Atimonan, Quezon, was the subject of cadastral proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Gumaca Branch. Miguel Escritor, as claimant, filed an answer claiming ownership by inheritance and asserted continuous possession dating from the Filipino-Spanish Revolution. Notice of hearing was published, the case became uncontested, and only claimant Escritor appeared to present evidence.

Cadastral Proceedings and Initial Judgment

On May 15, 1958, the cadastral court rendered judgment in Cadastral Case No. 72 adjudicating Lot No. 2749, with improvements, in favor of claimant Escritor and confirming his title. The court found that the land was acquired by inheritance from his father, who purchased it, and that possession was open, public, continuous, adverse, exclusive and notorious. On July 15, 1958, the court ordered the Chief of the General Land Registration Office to issue the corresponding decree of registration, declaring the decision final. There arose no opposition during the cadastral proceedings indicating an ownership claim by any person other than Escritor.

Petition for Review and Readjudication

On August 2, 1958, Simeon Acuna filed a petition for review of the May 15, 1958 decision, alleging that the registration in favor of Escritor was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The petition for review was granted on July 18, 1960, and a new hearing was set for September 13, 1960. While the proceedings continued, claimant Escritor died, and his heirs, the petitioners herein, remained and took possession of the property. On February 16, 1971, the cadastral court readjudicated Lot No. 2749 in favor of Acuna, and petitioners were ordered to vacate; a writ of possession issued thereafter and petitioners relinquished possession.

Civil Action for Damages

On October 13, 1975, Acuna filed Civil Case No. 1138-G in the same court seeking recovery of damages for the fruits of Lot No. 2749, alleging that petitioners had been in unlawful possession for thirteen years and that the registration effected in favor of the deceased claimant was procured by fraud, malice and misrepresentation. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that petitioners had possessed in good faith under a just title and that any cause of action, if existing, had prescribed.

Intermediate Appellate Court's Ruling

On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court reversed the trial court on October 31, 1984, and rendered judgment ordering defendants-appellees (the petitioners) to pay P10,725.00 for the value of the fruits received during the thirteen years of possession, P3,000.00 as attorney's fees, and costs. The Intermediate Appellate Court grounded its finding of bad faith on the cadastral court's August 21, 1971 statement that "Miguel Escritor forcibly took possession of the land in May, 1958, and benefited from the coconut trees thereon," concluding that petitioners' possession was wrongful and in bad faith.

Issues Presented

The dispositive issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether petitioners should be held liable for damages for fruits of Lot No. 2749 by reason of being possessors in bad faith during the period they occupied the land.

Parties' Contentions

Petitioners argued that the original cadastral judgment of May 15, 1958, declared the lot theirs and that they, as heirs, possessed under a just title and in good faith; they contended that bad faith, if any, of the deceased claimant was not imputable to them. Acuna maintained that the land had been registered in the name of the deceased claimant through fraud and that petitioners therefore possessed unlawfully and should reimburse the fruits collected during their possession.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari, reversed and set aside the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, and rendered judgment dismissing the complaint for damages. The Court sustained the trial court's finding that petitioners were possessors in good faith and thus not liable for damages. The Court made no pronouncement as to costs.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the May 15, 1958 cadastral decision in favor of claimant Escritor was a judgment of a competent court that established, for the purposes of the record, the claimant's belief in his legal ownership and justified continued possession. The Court invoked Art. 526, New Civil Code to define a possessor in bad faith as one who possessed while knowing that his title was defective, and observed that nothing in the record showed such knowledge on the part of Escritor or of petitioners. The Court emphasized the presumption of good faith under Art. 527, New Civil Code, placing the burden of proof on the party alleging bad faith. The Court further relied on Art. 534, New Civil Code, which provides that a successor by hereditary title shall not suffer the consequences of the wrongful possession of the decedent unless it is shown that the successor was aware of the flaws affecting it; the Court stated that bad faith is personal and intransmissible and that heirs should not be saddled wit

...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.