Title
Lubos vs. Galupo
Case
G.R. No. 139136
Decision Date
Jan 16, 2002
A dispute over 10.8 hectares in Northern Samar between heirs of Mansueto Galupo, Sr., and Lina Abalon Lubos, with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Galupo family due to a clear chain of title and lack of evidence supporting Lubos's claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-21027)

Background

The original tax declaration for the subject property was in the name of Victoriana Dulay under Tax Declaration No. 17056. The case alleges that on January 28, 1928, Victoriana Dulay and her son, Restituto D. Merino, sold the property to Juan Galupo. Following Juan Galupo's death, the land was inherited by his son, Mansueto Galupo, Sr. In 1952, Mansueto procured the cancellation of the original tax declaration and obtained a new one under his name. The heirs, plaintiffs in this case, discovered in 1984 that Lina Abalon Lubos was occupying the land.

Initial Proceedings

The trial court rendered a decision on November 26, 1992, favoring the plaintiffs. The court declared them the exclusive and absolute owners of the land, nullified Lubos's title as well as her sale of a portion of the land to Alicio Poldo, and ordered the defendants to vacate and pay damages.

Appeal and Ruling by the Court of Appeals

Lina Abalon Lubos and the spouses Poldo appealed the trial court’s ruling. On August 29, 1997, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision in its entirety. Following the denial of a motion for reconsideration by the Court of Appeals, the petitioner escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, questioning who among the parties had superior title to the disputed land.

Issue for Resolution

The primary issue for the Supreme Court's determination was whether the petitioner or the respondents held a better right or title to the property in question.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that factual findings of the trial court, which are also affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally considered final and not subject to review on appeal. Article 1141 of the Civil Code, pertaining to the prescription of real actions over immovables, states that such actions prescribe after thirty years, thereby delineating the need to ascertain whether the petitioner had obtained the property through acquisitive prescription.

Acquisitive Prescription Analysis

Acquisitive prescription can be ordinary or extraordinary, varying based on whether possession is had in good faith and with just title. The pertinent Civil Code provisions (Articles 1134 and 1137) prescribe periods of possession, indicating that ownership of immovable property may be acquired through ten years of possession in good faith or thirty years of adverse possession without just title and good faith.

Findings on Petitioner’s Claim

The petitioner failed to establish a just title to the property. The trial court found the transaction between Lubos and her father to be fictitious, undermining any claim of good faith. Furthermore, testimonies presented did not conclusively affirm the nature of possession by Juan Abalon, the petitioner's father. Possession needed to be characterized as p

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.