Title
Lamsis vs. Dong-e
Case
G.R. No. 173021
Decision Date
Oct 20, 2010
Dispute over untitled land in Baguio; respondent Margarita Dong-E claims ownership via inheritance, while petitioners assert public land status and acquisitive prescription. SC upheld Margarita’s ownership, dismissing petitioners’ claims of prescription and jurisdiction under IPRA.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 173021)

Documentary and Testimonial Evidence of Respondent’s Ownership

Respondent introduced:
• 1962 survey plan and 1964 tax declarations reconstructed from the 1922 record.
• February 26, 1964 Deed of Quitclaim from Ap-ap’s heirs to Gilbert Semon.
• Successive realty tax receipts in her name (1990–1991).
• CSTFAL 1998 resolution recognizing her ancestral land claim.
Testimony corroborated uninterrupted, material possession by respondent’s family and improvements dating from the 1960s.

Petitioners’ Allegations of Public Land and Prescription

Petitioners alleged that the Smith family, non-parties, were the true owners of the public land and that their possession since 1969–70 ripened into ownership by 30-year prescription. They challenged the authenticity of respondent’s documents and asserted tolerance-based possession in their own favor.

RTC Decision: Reivindicatoria in Favor of Respondent

The Regional Trial Court found preponderant evidence of respondent’s long-time possession and ownership:

  1. Declarations and survey plan indicated exclusive occupation by respondent’s predecessors.
  2. Quitclaim and tax payments evidenced a genuine interest.
  3. Petitioners’ inability to secure titles due to pending ancestral claims undermined their adverse possession theory.
    Judgment rendered: nullification of petitioners’ conveyances, eviction orders, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Court of Appeals Ruling: Affirmation on Preponderance of Evidence

The CA held that respondent met her burden of proving title and interest by preponderance. Petitioners presented only bare allegations without sufficient proof to override respondent’s documentary and testimonial evidence. The CA denied reconsideration, leading to this petition.

Issues Presented

  1. Did the CA disregard material facts in affirming the RTC?
  2. Can petitioners acquire Lot No. 1 by acquisitive prescription?
  3. Should the pending ancestral land claim before the NCIP take precedence (litis pendentia)?
  4. Did the RTC lack jurisdiction under RA 8371 (IPRA) at the time of filing?

Supreme Court Analysis – Factual Findings and Rule 45 Limitations

• Questions of fact are not reviewable in a Rule 45 certiorari petition. Both courts’ credibility assessments and weight given to evidence enjoy finality absent compelling reasons.
• Even if the Deed of Quitclaim were excluded, respondent’s other proofs of long-continued possession and tax declarations suffice to establish ownership interest.

Acquisitive Prescription and Tolerance of Possession

• Possession by mere tolerance is non-adverse and does not trigger the running of prescription.
• Petitioners admitted occupancy by permission of respondent’s predecessors and failed to prove any repudiation of that license.
• Their sales in 1998 occurred well short of the 30-year period required for prescription.

Ancestral Land Claim and Litis Pendentia

• A certification of ancestral land claim is analogous to a registration proceeding—recognition in rem but not a conclusive adjudication of ownership.
• Litis pendentia requires identity of parties, rights, and reliefs such that a decision in one case would ba



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms