Case Summary (G.R. No. 176858)
Facts of Ownership Claim and Disputed Instrument
Juanita Padilla owned an unregistered lot in San Roque, Tanauan, Leyte. After her death on 23 March 1989, her legal heirs (petitioners) sought partition. Petitioners learned by a 5 June 1998 letter from their brother Ricardo Bahia that he had declared the land for himself. An Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property, notarized on 4 (or 31) June 1966 and purportedly executed by Juanita in favor of Ricardo, was discovered in provincial assessor records. The property was not Torrens-registered.
Transactions and Allegations
During Ricardo’s lifetime, his daughters, Josephine Bahia and Virginia Bahia-Abas, purportedly sold the property to respondent Dominador Magdua. Petitioners alleged that Ricardo acquired the land through misrepresentation without co-heirs’ consent and questioned the authenticity of Juanita’s signature on the 1966 Affidavit, noting a 15 May 1978 instrument in which Juanita stated she would leave the inherited land to her children.
Initial RTC Proceedings: Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
Dominador moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, citing the property’s assessed value (P590.00) which fell below the RTC threshold. In an order dated 20 February 2006 the RTC initially dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, relying on the assessed value.
Reconsideration and Dismissal for Prescription
Petitioners argued the action sought annulment of a deed (a remedy beyond pecuniary estimation) and thus belonged to the RTC. Dominador moved to dismiss on prescription grounds. On 8 September 2006 the RTC reversed its jurisdictional ruling and took cognizance of the case but dismissed the complaint on prescription pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9, Rules of Court, reasoning that the Affidavit dated 1966 had started the prescriptive period and the 2001 suit was filed after more than 30 years.
Petition to the Supreme Court and Issue Presented
The petition for review under Rule 45 challenged the RTC orders of 8 September 2006 and 13 February 2007. The principal legal issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the action was barred by prescription.
Standard of Review in Rule 45 Petition
The Supreme Court reiterated that under Rule 45 only questions of law may be raised; factual findings of lower courts are generally final except in specified circumstances (e.g., findings grounded on conjecture, manifest error, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts, or omission of specific evidence). The Court found the RTC’s reliance on the Affidavit alone to conclude prescription to be speculative, justifying review.
Analysis of the RTC’s Reliance on the 1966 Affidavit
The Court found the RTC erred in basing dismissal solely on the Affidavit. Dominador did not present the deed of sale as evidence, nor proof that Ricardo authorized, consented to, or ratified the sale by his daughters to Dominador. The RTC’s assumption that Ricardo’s daughters had capacity to sell and that Ricardo may have ratified the sale was deemed speculative. Dominador also failed to offer corroborative evidence showing Ricardo’s uninterrupted, open, exclusive possession since 1966 sufficient to establish extraordinary acquisitive prescription.
Co-owner Prescription Rule and Applicability (Article 494)
The Court applied Article 494 of the Civil Code: prescription does not run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against co-owners or co-heirs while the co-ownership is recognized, and possession akin to a trustee’s cannot ripen into acquisitive prescription absent a clear repudiation of co-ownership. The requisites for such repudiation are (1) unequivocal acts of ouster, (2) notice to the co-owner(s), and (3) clear and convincing evidence.
When Prescription Began to Run in This Case
The Court concluded that the three requisites were not met starting in 1966. The crucial repudiation did not occur, or at least did not become known to petitioners, until Ricardo’s 5 June 1998 letter declaring adjudication of the land for himself. The prescriptive period therefore began on that date. Because petitioners filed suit on 26 October 2001—approximately three years after they received notice—Dominador could not claim acquisitive prescription (neither ordinary nor extraordinary) against co-heirs.
Burden of Proof and Purchaser in Good Faith on Unregistered Land
The Court emphasized that the property was unregistered; a purchaser of unregistered land buys at his own risk and must clearly and conv
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 176858)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure assailing Orders dated 8 September 2006 and 13 February 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City, Branch 34, in Civil Case No. 2001-10-161.
- RTC initially dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction in an Order dated 20 February 2006.
- RTC, in an Order dated 8 September 2006, reconsidered its jurisdictional finding, took cognizance of the case, but dismissed the action on the ground of prescription pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.
- RTC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in an Order dated 13 February 2007, prompting the present petition.
- Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the RTC Orders dated 8 September 2006 and 13 February 2007, and directed the RTC to try the case on the merits.
Parties and Role of Decision-Maker
- Petitioners: Heirs of Juanita Padilla, represented by Claudio Padilla, seeking recovery of ownership, possession, partition and damages.
- Respondent: Dominador Magdua, purchaser of the subject land from daughters of Ricardo Bahia.
- Decision penned by Justice Carpio, J.; Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Bersamin and Abad, JJ., concurred; *designated additional members per Special Orders No. 883 and No. 886 dated 1 September 2010 noted.
Facts as Pleaded and in Record
- Subject property: a piece of land located in San Roque, Tanauan, Leyte; records do not show Torrens registration.
- Original owner: Juanita Padilla, who died on 23 March 1989.
- Petitioners, as legal heirs, sought partition of the land after Juanita’s death.
- Petitioners informed eldest brother Ricardo Bahia of partition plans; Ricardo, in a letter dated 5 June 1998, declared the land for himself.
- Alleged Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property in favor of Ricardo was notarized and dated variously in the record as 4 June 1966 and elsewhere as 31 May 1966; the Affidavit was kept by the Provincial Assessor’s office for tax declaration purposes and became part of public records there.
- Petitioners allege misrepresentation by Ricardo, transfer without consent/knowledge of co-heirs, questionable signature of Juanita on the Affidavit, and point to a written instrument dated 15 May 1978 wherein Juanita purportedly declared she would leave the land to her children.
- Ricardo allegedly constructed a house on the land prior to 1966, later left the place after separating from his wife and moved to Inasuyan, Kawayan, Biliran; the house was leased to third parties.
- The land was sold by Ricardo’s daughters, Josephine Bahia and Virginia Bahia-Abas, to Dominador during Ricardo’s lifetime; deed of sale was not presented in evidence in the RTC record, nor was proof of their authority to sell shown.
- Declaration of Property as of 23 March 2000 shows assessed value of P590.00.
Causes of Action Pleaded
- Recovery of ownership and possession.
- Partition.
- Damages.
- Annulment of the deed of sale made by Ricardo’s daughters to Dominador (petitioners alleged invalidity of that sale and contested the Affidavit’s due execution and authenticity).
Procedural Motions and RTC Rulings
- Dominador filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on the assessed value being within Municipal Trial Court (MTC) jurisdiction.
- RTC initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (20 February 2006) because assessed value P590.00 was below RTC threshold.
- Petitioners moved for reconsideration arguing the action included annulment of a deed (an action incapable of pecuniary estimation), thereby vesting jurisdiction in the RTC.
- Dominador filed another motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription.
- RTC’s 8 September 2006 Order: reconsidered and took cognizance (found RTC had jurisdiction) but dismissed the case on prescription grounds pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9, reasoning that the Affidavit dated in 1966 established a lapse of over 30 years before suit filing in 2001.
- RTC’s 13 February 2007 Order denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration for lack of new issues.
Issue Presented
- Whether the present action is barred by prescription.
Parties’ Contentions on Prescription and Possession
- Petitioners:
- RTC erred in dismissing on prescription.
- Affidavit (1966) did not satisfy requirement of sufficient repudiation of co-ownership by Ricardo under Article 494 of the Civil Code.
- Affidavit being kept by the Provincial Assessor’s office for tax purposes does not equate to a record or registration affecting real properties sufficient to constitute constructive notice.
- No clear showing that petitioners (co-heirs) were notified or had knowledge of the Affidavit; thus it cannot start prescription as constructive notice to adverse claim.
- Respondent Dominador:
- Juanita never renounced her signature nor objected to Ricardo’s possession, which was open, absolute and in the concept of an owner.
- The 15 May 1978 instrument of Juanita was disclosed late, possibly fabricated.
- Alleged questionable signature of Juanita raised only after 35 years.
- As a buyer in good faith, Dominador invokes the defense of acquisitive prescription.
Legal Standards and Authorities Cited by the Court
- Rule 45 standards: only questions of law may be raised on petition for review on certiorari; factual findings of lower courts are generally final and conclusive except under specified circumstances (11 enumerated exceptions reproduced in the decision).
- Section 1, Rule 9, Rules of Court: defenses and objections not pleaded are waived; court shall dismiss cases where action is barred by statute of limitations.
- Article 494, Civil Code: "No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs as long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership." Possession of a co-owner is like that of a trustee; to be adverse to other co-owners, requisites are:
- Unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster.
- Such acts made known to other co-owners.
- Evidence must be clear and convincing.
- Article 1137 referenced (in context of prescription and possession principles).
- Precedent cases cited: International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. FGU Insurance Corporation; Salvador v. Court of Appeals; Generosa v. Prangan-Valera; Heirs of Maningding v. Court of Appeals; Spouses de Leon v. Court of Appeals; Singson v. Isabela Sawmill; Russell v. Vestil; Social Security System v. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc.; Radio Communications of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals.
- Republic Act No. 7691 (amendment to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129) provisions on jurisdiction:
- Section 1 (Sec. 19 as amended): RTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction in ci