A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974 - Edano vs. Asdala

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974)

Factual Background

Jose Alegarbes filed Homestead Application No. V-33203 in 1949 for a twenty-four-hectare tract of unsurveyed land in Lower Banas, Lantawan, Basilan, which the Bureau of Lands approved on January 23, 1952. In 1955 the tract was subdivided into Lot Nos. 138, 139 and 140; Lot No. 139 was allocated to Ulpiano Custodio and Lot No. 140 to Jesus Virtucio, each of whom filed homestead applications. Alegarbes protested those applications, asserting his approval covered the entire area including Lots 139 and 140, but on October 30, 1961 the Director of Lands denied his protest and amended his approval to exclude Lots 139 and 140, giving due course to the applications of Custodio and Virtucio.

Administrative Proceedings

Alegarbes appealed the Director of Lands' decision to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who dismissed his appeal on July 28, 1967, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Office of the President on October 25, 1974; his motion for reconsideration was denied. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources issued an order of execution on May 11, 1989 directing Alegarbes to vacate Lot 140, but he refused to comply.

Complaint and Pleadings

Jesus Virtucio filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Preliminary Injunction against Jose Alegarbes on September 26, 1997. In his answer, Alegarbes alleged that the administrative decisions were void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction and for violation of the Public Land Act, asserted that any patent issued to Virtucio was procured by fraud, and pleaded that his possession of Lots 138, 139 and 140 had been open, continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted in the concept of an owner for more than thirty (30) years, asserting acquisitive prescription as a defense. In an amended answer he averred that his deceased brother and family and his own family had developed Lot 140 since the mid-1950s and introduced permanent improvements since 1960.

Trial Court Decision

The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment on February 19, 2001 in favor of Jesus Virtucio, ordering Jose Alegarbes and those acting in his behalf to vacate Lot No. 140, Pls-19, and surrender possession and ownership to plaintiff, and awarding attorney’s fees of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00), litigation expenses of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), and costs of suit of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00).

Court of Appeals Decision

On February 25, 2009 the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and declared Jose Alegarbes the owner of Lot No. 140, Pls-19, finding that he had acquired ownership ipso jure by virtue of open, continuous and exclusive possession for more than thirty (30) years; the CA deleted the awards of attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit. The CA reasoned that even if Virtucio’s homestead application had been finally approved, Alegarbes could still acquire Lot 140 by acquisitive prescription, and that the administrative agencies’ decisions did not resolve whether Alegarbes’ possession had segregated the lot from the public domain.

Issues Presented

The principal issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether Jose Alegarbes acquired ownership of Lot No. 140 by acquisitive prescription. Jesus Virtucio assigned errors asserting that the CA erred in setting aside the RTC judgment, erred in disregarding the CA decision in Custodio v. Alegarbes (CA-G.R. CV 26286), and erred in deleting the award of attorney’s fees.

Standard of Review and Scope of Review

The Court reiterated that petitions under Rule 45 are confined to questions of law and ordinarily do not permit review of factual findings, citing the general rule that findings of fact are final when supported by substantial evidence. The Court, however, acknowledged recognized exceptions that allow review of factual findings, including when the CA’s findings are contrary to those of the trial court, and held that the present case warranted factual review because the CA’s conclusions conflicted with the RTC’s findings.

Legal Framework for Acquisitive Prescription

The Court reviewed the law on acquisitive prescription under Article 1106 of the New Civil Code and related provisions: ordinary acquisitive prescription required possession in good faith and with just title for ten years; extraordinary acquisitive prescription required adverse possession for thirty years without need of title or good faith per Article 1137. The Court distinguished acquisitive prescription from extinctive prescription and explained that Article 1155 deals with interruption of actions, not with interruption of acquisitive prescription, which is governed by Articles 1120–1125; civil interruption of acquisitive prescription occurs only upon issuance of a judicial summons.

Application to the Present Case

The Court found that administrative protests and administrative decisions, including the protest filed by Alegarbes and the Director of Lands' decision of October 30, 1961, did not constitute civil interruption of the thirty-year period for acquisitive prescription, because no judicial summons issued until Virtucio filed suit in 1997. The Court relied on prior rulings, including Heirs of Marcelina Azardon‑Crisologo v. Ranon and Heirs of Bienvenido and Araceli Tanyag v. Gabriel, to hold that a mere notice of adverse claim, tax declarations, or administrative actions do not toll the running of acquisitive prescription. Consequently, by the time of the DENR order of execution in 1989 and by the time suit was filed in 1997, Alegarbes had possessed Lot 140 in an open, continuous and exclusive manner for more than thirty (30) years, and thus had acquired ownership ipso jure.

Administrative Decisions and Jurisdictional Limits

The Court observed that neither the Director of Lands, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, nor the Office of the President addressed whether Alegarbes’ possession had segregated Lot 140 from the mass of public land, a question that would place the lot beyond the jurisdiction of those agencies. The Court held that the RTC’s reliance solely on the administrative decisions lacked substantial and legal basis to deny Alegarbes’ claim of acquisitive title, and the CA correctly considered the evidence of long possession.

On Custodio v. Alegarbes and Precedential Effect

The Court explained that Virtucio could not derive advantage from the CA decision in Custodio v. Alegarbes, which involv

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Jesus Virtucio, represented by Abdon Virtucio, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court, to appeal the Court of Appeals decision reversing the Regional Trial Court judgment.
Jose Alegarbes was the respondent in the Rule 45 petition and the appellee in the trial and appellate proceedings.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Isabela, Basilan rendered its decision on February 19, 2001 in Civil Case No. 685-627, awarding Lot No. 140 to the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeals rendered its decision on February 25, 2009 in CA-G.R. CV No. 72613, reversing the RTC and declaring Jose Alegarbes owner ipso jure of Lot No. 140.
The Supreme Court, Third Division, denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals in a decision promulgated on August 29, 2012.

Key Factual Allegations

Jose Alegarbes filed Homestead Application No. V-33203 (E-V-49150) in 1949 for a 24-hectare unsurveyed tract in Banas, Lantawan, Basilan, which was approved on January 23, 1952.
The subject tract was publicly subdivided in 1955 into Lot Nos. 138, 139 and 140, and Lot 140 was allocated to Jesus Virtucio, who filed Homestead Application No. 18-4421 (E-18-2924).
Alegarbes protested the homestead applications for Lots 139 and 140 on the ground that his approved application covered the whole area.
The Director of Lands denied Alegarbes' protest on October 30, 1961, amending Alegarbes' application to exclude Lots 139 and 140 and giving due course to the applications for Lots 139 and 140.
Administrative appeals by Alegarbes to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and to the Office of the President were dismissed, with final administrative action affirmed on October 25, 1974.
The Lands Management Bureau issued an order of execution on May 11, 1989 directing Alegarbes to vacate Lot 140, but Alegarbes refused to vacate.
Virtucio filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Preliminary Injunction before the RTC on September 26, 1997.
Alegarbes pleaded that he had open, continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession in the concept of an owner for more than thirty years and claimed acquisition by acquisitive prescription.

Administrative Proceedings

The Director of Lands rendered a decision on October 30, 1961 denying Alegarbes' protest and amending his homestead application to exclude Lots 139 and 140.
The decision of the Director of Lands was affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources on July 28, 1967 and by the Office of the President on October 25, 1974, with a denial of reconsideration thereafter.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources issued an Order of Execution on May 11, 1989 to enforce the administrative decisions and to place Virtucio in peaceful possession of Lot 140.
No patent was shown to have been issued or registered in the name of either party as of the trial court record, leaving the land formally in the name of the State.

Trial Court Decision

The RTC found for Virtucio and ordered Alegarbes and those acting on his behalf to vacate Lot No. 140, Pls-19, and to surrender possession and ownership to Virtucio.
The RTC awarded Virtucio attorney’s fees in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos, litigation expenses of Ten Thousand Pesos, and costs of suit of Five Hundred Pesos.
The RTC relied on the administrative approvals as legal basis