Title
Romero vs. Natividad
Case
G.R. No. 161943
Decision Date
Jun 28, 2005
Petitioner claims inheritance of titled land; respondents assert ownership via long possession since 1920s. SC rules for respondents, citing acquisitive prescription and laches due to petitioner's 70-year inaction.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 10427)

Procedural History

In 1996, Ruben Romero filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Morong, Rizal against Edison Natividad and Herminia Natividad-Mejorada for recovery of possession and quieting of title. Romero claimed ownership of the land through inheritance from his mother, Estelita Bautista-Atendido, who inherited it from Francisca Galarosa. The respondents countered by asserting that they had been in open and uninterrupted possession of the land since the 1920s, having inherited it from their grandfather Demetrio Natividad.

Trial Court Decision

On June 15, 2001, the RTC dismissed Romero's complaint, citing the doctrine of acquisitive prescription and ordering him to pay attorney's fees. The trial court concluded that respondents' long and uncontested possession of the property had evolved into ownership rights. It found that the original deed of donation executed by Francisca Galarosa was supported by factual possession as evidenced by Demetrio Natividad’s business activities and taxation declarations related to the property.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Romero appealed to the Court of Appeals, where he argued that the trial court erred by declaring the respondents as owners based on prescription, asserting that prescription cannot run against a titled property. He also claimed that the purported donation was invalid due to lack of a proper public document and that the respondents' grandfather had not occupied the entire property. On August 29, 2003, the appellate court modified the RTC's decision by deleting the award of attorney's fees but affirmed the finding that the respondents had effectively acquired ownership of the property through prescription.

Legal Analysis of Claims

Romero's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition for review. The Supreme Court analyzed the doctrine of laches, concluding that respondents were entitled to ownership due to their extended possession. The distinction was made that the law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. The Court pointed out that the citation of Torres v. Court of Appeals confirmed that acquisition through continuous

...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.