in connection with its functions under its charter and by-laws and the

DONATION Naga City Teachers' Association as well as the Camarines Sur High
School Alumni Association, PROVIDED FURTHERMORE, that the
DONEE shall not sell, mortgage or incumber the property herein
PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR v. BODEGA GLASSWARE
donated including any and all improvements thereon in favor of any
party and provided, lastly, that the construction of the building or
Civil Law; Donations; Revocation; The Supreme Court (SC) has buildings referred to above shall be commenced within a period of one
affirmed the validity of an automatic revocation clause in donations in (1) year from and after the execution of this donation, otherwise, this
the case of De Luna v. Abrigo, 181 SCRA 150, promulgated in 1990.— donation shall be deemed automatically revoked and voided and of no
This Court has affirmed the validity of an automatic revocation clause further force and effect.
in donations in the case of De Luna v. Abrigo, 181 SCRA 150,
promulgated in 1990. We explained the nature of automatic revocation CASTEA accepted the donation in
clauses by first identifying the three categories of donation. In De
Luna, we said that a donation may be simple, remuneratory or onerous. However, on August 15, 1995, CASTEA entered into a Contract of
A donation is simple when the cause is the donor’s pure liberality. It is Lease with Bodega over the donated property.
remuneratory when the donor “gives something to reward past or future to Bodega for a period of 20 years
services or because of future charges or burdens, when the value of
said services, burdens or charges is less than the value of the Bodega took actual possession of the property
donation.” A donation is onerous when it is “subject to burdens,
On November 11, 2007, petitioner sent a letter to Bodega
charges, or future services equal (or more) in value than that of the
thing donated x x x.” This Court found that the donation in De Luna was In this letter, petitioner stated that Bodega's occupation of the property
onerous as it required the donee to build a chapel, a nursery, and a was by mere tolerance of the petitioner.
kindergarten. We then went on to explain that an onerous donation is
governed by the law on contracts and not by the law on donations. It is As it now intended to use the property for its developmental projects,
within this context that this Court found an automatic revocation clause petitioner demanded that Bodega vacate the property and surrender
as valid. its peaceful possession. Bodega refused to comply with the demand.
Petitioner,... revoked its donation through a Deed of Revocation of
Facts: Donation
Petitioner is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Peñafrancia, It asserted that CASTEA violated the conditions in the Deed of
Naga City Donation when it leased the property to Bodega.
On September 28, 1966,... petitioner donated around 600 square CASTEA never challenged this revocation.
meters of this parcel of land to the Camarines Sur Teachers'
Association, Inc. (CASTEA) through a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos petitioner filed an action for unlawful detainer against Bodega before
the MTC Naga City
The Deed of Donation included an automatic revocation clause...
which states: , the MTC Naga City ruled in favor of the petitioner. It ordered Bodega
to vacate the property and to pay P15,000 a month as reasonable
That the condition of this donation is that the DONEE shall use the compensation.
above-described portion of land subject of the present donation for no
other purpose except the construction of its building to be owned and Bodega appealed this Decision to the RTC Naga City which reversed
to be constructed by the above-named DONEE to house its offices to it
be used by the said Camarines Sur Teachers' Association, Inc.
In its assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC Naga of tolerance established... in De Luna that:It is clear, however, that
City that the petitioner cannot demand that Bodega vacate the judicial intervention is necessary not for purposes of obtaining a
property. judicial declaration rescinding a contract already deemed rescinded
by virtue of an agreement providing for rescission even without judicial
According to the CA, while petitioner alleges that CASTEA violated intervention, but in order to determine whether or not the rescission
the conditions of the donation and thus, the automatic revocation was proper.
clause applies, it should have first filed an action for reconveyance of
the property against CASTEA. While the ruling in De Luna applied specifically to onerous donations
with an automatic revocation clause, we extended this doctrine to
The CA also found that petitioner's action has already prescribed. apply to donations inter vivos in general in Roman Catholic
petitioner had 10 years to file an action for reconveyance from the Archbishop of Manila.
time the Deed of Donation was violated. We explained in this case that Article 732 of the Civil Code states that
the action for unlawful detainer was filed more than 12 years later. the general provisions on obligations and contracts shall govern
donations inter vivos in all matters not determined in Title III, Book III
Issues: on donations. Title III has no explicit provisions for instances where a
donation has an automatic revocation clause. Thus, the rules in
who between petitioner and Bodega has the right to the actual
contracts law regarding automatic rescission of contracts as well as
physical possession of the property.
the jurisprudence explaining it find suppletory application.
Ruling:
We then reiterated in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila that
property through lawful means instead of unlawfully wresting where a donation has an automatic revocation clause, the occurrence
possession of the property from its current occupant. of the condition agreed to by the parties as to cause the revocation, is
sufficient for a party to consider the donation revoked without need of
Thus, an action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry is a summary any judicial action. A judicial finding that the revocation is proper is
proceeding and is an expeditious means to recover possession. If the only necessary when the other party actually goes to court for the
parties raise the issue of ownership, courts may only pass upon that specific purpose of challenging the propriety of the revocation.
issue for the purpose of ascertaining who has the better right of
possession. We repeated this ruling in Dolar v. Barangay Lublub (Now P.D.
Monfort North) Municipality of Dumangas.[47] We once again held
Any ruling involving ownership is not final and binding. that if a contract of donation provides for automatic rescission or
An action for unlawful detainer must allege and establish the following reversion in case of a breach of a condition and the donee violates it
key jurisdictional facts: (1) initially, possession of property by the or fails to comply with it, the property donated automatically reverts
defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) back to the donor without need of any judicial declaration. It is onl y
eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to when the donee denies the rescission or challenges its propriety that
defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession; (3) the court can intervene to conclusively settle whether the resolution
thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and was proper.
deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and (4) within one year In this case, the Deed of Donation contains a clear automatic
from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff revocation clause.
instituted the complaint for ejectment.
The last clause of this paragraph states that "otherwise, this donation
When in an unlawful detainer action, the party seeking recovery of shall be deemed automatically revoked x x x."[50] We read the final
possession alleges that the opposing party occupied the subject clause of this provision as an automatic revocation clause which
property by mere tolerance, this must be alleged clearly and the acts
pertains to all three conditions of the donation. When CASTEA leased Third, as owner of the property in this case, the petitioner is entitled to
the property to Bodega, it breached the first and second conditions. its possession. The petitioner's action for ejectment is anchored on
this right to possess.
Accordingly, petitioner takes the position that when CASTEA leased
the property to Bodega, it violated the conditions in the Deed of a party seeking to eject another from a property for unlawful detainer
Donation and as such, the property automatically reverted to it. must file the action for ejectment within one year from the last demand
to vacate.[53] This is the prescriptive period that the petitioner is
Thus, as petitioner validly considered the donation revoked and bound to comply with in this case. The records show that the
CASTEA never contested it, the property donated effectively reverted petitioner served its last demand letter on November 11, 2007. It filed
back to it as owner the action for ejectment on March 13, 2008 or around four months
. In demanding the return of the property, petitioner sources its right of from the last demand. The action is clearly within the prescriptive
possession on its ownership. Under Article 428 of the Civil Code, the period.
owner has a right of action against the holder and possessor of the
thing in order to recover it. Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima vs. Alzona (2018)

This right of possession prevails over Bodega's claim which is Petitioners: THE MISSIONARY SISTERS OF OUR LADY OF FATIMA
anchored on its Contract of Lease with CASTEA. CASTEA's act of (PEACH SISTERS OF LAGUNA), REPRESENTED BY REV.
leasing the property to Bodega, in breach of the conditions stated in MOTHER MA. CONCEPCION R. REALON, ET AL.
the Deed of Donation, is the very same act which caused the Respondents: AMANDO V. ALZONA, ET AL.
automatic revocation of the donation. Thus, it had no right, either as Ponente: Reyes, Jr. (Second Division)
an owner or as an authorized administrator of the property to lease it Topic: Civil Law; Commercial Law
to Bodega. While a lessor need not be the owner of the property SUMMARY: The SC upheld petitioner’s personality to accept the
leased, he or she must, at the very least, have the authority to lease it donation in its favor despite the fact that the donation was made before
out.[51] None exists in this case. Bodega finds no basis for its its articles of incorporation were submitted to the SEC on the ground of
continued possession of the property. corporation by estoppel.
DOCTRINE: Under Article 737 of the Civil Code, "[t]he donor's capacity
As to the question of prescription, we rule that the petitioner's right to
shall be determined as of the time of the making of the donation." By
file this ejectment suit against Bodega has not prescribed.
analogy, the legal capacity or the personality of the donee, or the
First, we reiterate that jurisprudence has definitively declared that authority of the latter's representative, in certain cases, is determined
Article 764 on the prescription of actions for the revocation of a at the time of acceptance of the donation. Article 738, in relation to
donation does not apply in cases where the donation has an Article 745, of the Civil Code provides that all those who are not
automatic revocation clause. specifically disqualified by law may accept donations either personally
or through an authorized representative with a special power of attorney
Second,... the breach of the condition in the donation causes the for the purpose or with a general and sufficient power.
automatic revocation. All the donor has to do is to formally inform the Jurisprudence settled that "[t]he filing of articles of incorporation and
donee of the revocation. Judicial intervention only becomes necessary the issuance of the certificate of incorporation are essential for the
if the donee questions the propriety of the revocation. Even then, existence of a de facto corporation." In fine, it is the act of registration
judicial intervention is required to merely confinn and not order the with SEC through the issuance of a certificate of incorporation that
revocation. Hence, there can be no 10-year prescriptive period to file marks the beginning of an entity's corporate existence.
an action to speak of. When the donee does not contest the The doctrine of corporation by estoppel is founded on principles
revocation, no court action is necessary. of equity and is designed to prevent injustice and unfairness. It applies
when a non-existent corporation enters into contracts or dealings with
third persons. In which case, the person who has contracted or
otherwise dealt with the non-existent corporation is estopped to deny The Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima (petitioner),
the latter's legal existence in any action leading out of or involving such otherwise known as the Peach Sisters of Laguna, is a religious and
contract or dealing. While the doctrine is generally applied to protect charitable group established under the patronage of the Roman
the sanctity of dealings with the public, nothing prevents its application Catholic Bishop of San Pablo on May 30, 1989. Mother Ma. Concepcion
in the reverse, in fact the very wording of the law which sets forth the R. Realon (Mother Concepcion) is the petitioner's Superior General.
doctrine of corporation by estoppel permits such interpretation. Such The respondents, on the other hand, are the legal heirs of the late
that a person who has assumed an obligation in favor of a non- existent Purificacion Y. Alzona (Purificacion).
corporation, having transacted with the latter as if it was duly Purificacion, a spinster, is the registered owner of parcels of
incorporated, is prevented from denying the existence of the latter to land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-57820* and
avoid the enforcement of the contract. T-162375; and a co-owner of another property covered by TCT No. T-
Jurisprudence dictates that the doctrine of corporation by 162380, all of which are located in Calamba City, Laguna.
estoppel applies for as long as there is no fraud and when the existence In 1996, Purificacion, impelled by her unmaterialized desire to
of the association is attacked for causes attendant at the time the be nun, decided to devote the rest of her life in helping others. In the
contract or dealing sought to be enforced was entered into, and not same year, she then became a benefactor of the petitioner by giving
thereafter. support to the community and its works.
In donations made to a person for services rendered to the In 1997, during a doctor's appointment, Purificacion then
donor, the donor's will is moved by acts which directly benefit him. The accompanied by Mother Concepcion, discovered that she has been
motivating cause is gratitude, acknowledgment of a favor, a desire to suffering from lung cancer. Considering the restrictions in her
compensate. A donation made to one who saved the donor's life, or a movement, Purificacion requested Mother Concepcion to take care of
lawyer who renounced his fees for services rendered to the donor, her in her house, to which the latter agreed.
would fall under this class of donations. In October 1999, Purificacion called Mother Concepcion and
--- handed her a handwritten letter dated October 1999. Therein,
The principle and essence of implied ratification require that the Purificacion stated that she is donating her house and lot at F. Mercado
principal has full knowledge at the time of ratification of all the material Street and Riceland at Banlic, both at Calamba, Laguna, to the
facts and circumstances relating to the act sought to be ratified or petitioner through Mother Concepcion. On the same occasion,
validated. Also, it is important that the act constituting the ratification is Purificacion introduced Mother Concepcion to her nephew, Francisco
unequivocal in that it is performed without the slightest hint of objection Del Mundo (Francisco), and niece, Ma. Lourdes Alzona Aguto-Africa
or protest from the donor or the donee, thus producing the inevitable (Lourdes). Purificacion, instructed Francisco to give a share of the
conclusion that the donation and its acceptance were in fact confirmed harvest to Mother Concepcion, and informed Lourdes that she had
and ratified by the donor and the donee. given her house to Mother Concepcion.
--- Sometime in August 2001, at the request of Purificacion, Mother
[P]rivity in estate denotes the privity between assignor and Concepcion went to see Atty. Nonato Arcillas (Atty. Arcillas) in Los
assignee, donor and donee, grantor and grantee, joint tenant for life Baños, Laguna. During their meeting, Atty. Arcillas asked Mother
and remainderman or reversioner and their respective assignees, Concepcion whether their group is registered with the SEC, to which
vendor by deed of warranty and a remote vendee or assignee. A privy the latter replied in the negative. Acting on the advice given by Atty.
in estate is one, it has been said, who derives his title to the property in Arcillas, Mother Concepcion went to SEC and filed the corresponding
question by purchase; one who takes by conveyance. In fine, registration application on August 28, 2001.
respondents, as successors-in-interest, derive their right from and are On August 29, 2001, Purificacion executed a Deed of Donation
in the same position as their predecessor in whose shoes they now Inter Vivos (Deed) in favor of the petitioner, conveying her properties
stand. covered by TCT Nos. T-67820 and T-162375, and her undivided share
FACTS: in the property covered by TCT No. T-162380. The Deed was notarized
by Atty. Arcillas and witnessed by Purificacion's nephews Francisco
and Diosdado Alzona, and grandnephew, Atty. Fernando M. Alonzo. corporation by estoppel as provided for under Section
The donation was accepted on even date by Mother Concepcion for 21 of the Corporation Code.
and in behalf of the petitioner. o In this controversy, Purificacion dealt with the petitioner
Thereafter, Mother Concepcion filed an application before the
as if it were a corporation. This is evident from the fact
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) that the petitioner be exempted from
donor's tax as a religious organization. The application was granted by that Purificacion executed two (2) documents conveying
the BIR through a letter dated January 14, 2002 of Acting Assistant her properties in favor of the petitioner – first, on October
Commissioner, Legal Service, Milagros Regalado. 11, 1999 via handwritten letter, and second, on August
Subsequently, the Deed, together with the owner's duplicate 29, 2001 through a Deed; the latter having been
copies of TCT Nos. T-57820, T-162375, and T-162380, and the executed the day after the petitioner filed its application
exemption letter from the BIR was presented for registration. The for registration with the SEC.
Register of Deeds, however, denied the registration on account of the
o In this case, while the underlying contract which is
Affidavit of Adverse Claim dated September 26, 2001 filed by the
brother of Purificacion, respondent Amando Y. Alzona (Amando). sought to be enforced is that of a donation, and thus
On October 30, 2001, Purificacion died without any issue, and rooted on liberality, it cannot be said that Purificacion, as
survived only by her brother of full blood, Amando, who nonetheless the donor failed to acquire any benefit therefrom so as
died during the pendency of this case and is now represented and to prevent the application of the doctrine of corporation
substituted by his legal heirs, joined as herein respondents. by estoppel. To recall, the subject properties were given
On April 9, 2002, Amando filed a Complaint before the RTC, by Purificacion, as a token of appreciation for the
seeking to annul the Deed executed between Purificacion and the
services rendered to her during her illness. In fine, the
petitioner, on the ground that at the time the donation was made, the
latter was not registered with the SEC and therefore has no juridical subject deed partakes of the nature of a remuneratory
personality and cannot legally accept the donation. or compensatory donation, having been made "for the
RTC dismissed the petition. CA modified, declaring the donation purpose of rewarding the donee for past services, which
void. services do not amount to a demandable debt."
ISSUES: o Precisely, the existence of the petitioner as a corporate
 WoN petitioner has the requisite legal personality to accept the entity is upheld in this case for the purpose of validating
donation the Deed to ensure that the primary objective for which
o YES. At the outset, it must be stated that as correctly the donation was intended is achieved, that is, to convey
pointed out by the CA, the RTC erred in holding that the the property for the purpose of aiding the petitioner in
petitioner is a de facto corporation. the pursuit of its charitable objectives.
o Petitioner filed its Articles of Incorporation and by-laws o Further, apart from the foregoing, the subsequent act by
on August 28, 2001. However, the SEC issued the Purificacion of re-conveying the property in favor of the
corresponding Certificate of Incorporation only on petitioner is a ratification by conduct of the otherwise
August 31, 2001, two (2) days after Purificacion defective donation.
executed a Deed of Donation on August 29, 2001. o In this controversy, while the initial conveyance is
Clearly, at the time the donation was made, the defective, the genuine intent of Purificacion to donate
Petitioner cannot be considered a corporation de facto. the subject properties in favor of the petitioner is
o Rather, a review of the attendant circumstances reveals indubitable. Also, while the petitioner is yet to be
that it calls for the application of the doctrine of incorporated, it cannot be said that the initial
 conveyance was tainted with fraud or misrepresentation. NOTES: Petition for review on certiorari GRANTED
Contrarily, Purificacion acted with full knowledge of
circumstances of the Petitioner. This is evident from PRESCRIPTION
Purificacion's act of referring Mother Concepcion to Atty.
Arcillas, who, in turn, advised the petitioner to apply for CONRADO R. ESPIRITU, JR., TERESITA ESPIRITU-GUTIERREZ,
registration. Further, with the execution of two (2) MARIETTA R. ESPIRITU-CRUZ, OSCAR R. ESPIRITU, and
ALFREDO R. ESPIRITU vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
documents of conveyance in favor of the petitioner, it is
G.R. No. 219070
clear that what Purificacion intended was for the sisters June 21, 2017
comprising the petitioner to have ownership of her
properties to aid them in the pursuit of their charitable Same; Same; For registration under this provision to prosper, the
activities, as a token of appreciation for the services they applicant must establish the following requisites: (a) the land is an
rendered to her during her illness. To put it differently, alienable and disposable, and patrimonial property of the public
domain; (b) the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest have been in
the reference to the petitioner was merely a descriptive
possession of the land for at least ten (10) years, in good faith and with
term used to refer to the sisters comprising the just title, or for at least thirty (30) years, regardless of good faith or just
congregation collectively. Accordingly, the acceptance title; and (c) the land had already been converted to or declared as
of Mother Concepcion for the sisters comprising the patrimonial property of the State at the beginning of the said 10-year or
congregation is sufficient to perfect the donation and 30-year period of possession.—In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v.
transfer title to the property to the petitioner. Ultimately, Republic of the Philippines, 587 SCRA 172 (2009), the Court explained
the subsequent incorporation of the petitioner and its that when Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529 provides that persons “who
have acquired ownership over private lands by prescription under the
affirmation of Mother Concepcion's authority to accept
provisions of existing laws,” it unmistakably refers to the Civil Code as
on its behalf cured whatever defect that may have a valid basis for the registration of lands. For registration under this
attended the acceptance of the donation. provision to prosper, the applicant must establish the following
o The Deed sought to be enforced having been validly requisites: (a) the land is an alienable and disposable, and patrimonial
entered into by Purificacion, the respondents' property of the public domain; (b) the applicant and its predecessors-
predecessor-in-interest, binds the respondents who in-interest have been in possession of the land for at least 10 years, in
succeed the latter as heirs. good faith and with just title, or for at least 30 years, regardless of good
faith or just title; and (c) the land had already been converted to or
 WoN Mother Concepcion has the authority to act as declared as patrimonial property of the State at the beginning of the
representative for and in behalf of the petitioner said 10-year or 30-year period of possession.
o YES. Foremost, the authority of Mother Concepcion was
never questioned by the petitioner. In fact, the latter FACTS:
affirms and supports the authority of Mother Concepcion
to accept the donation on their behalf; as she is, after all On March 1, 2010, the petitioners, with their now deceased sibling,
Carmen Espiritu, filed before the RTC an Application for Registration of
the congregation's Superior General. Furthermore, the
Title to Land4 covering a parcel of land with an area of 6,971 square
petitioner's avowal of Mother Concepcion's authority meters, located at Barangay La Huerta, Parafiaque City, Metro Manila,
after their SEC registration is a ratification of the latter's and identified as Lot 4178, Cad. 299 of the Paranaque Cadastre Case
authority to accept the subject donation as the 3.
petitioner's representative.
The petitioners alleged that their deceased parents, Conrado Espiritu, Registration under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 is based on
Sr. and Felicidad Rodriguez-Espiritu, were the owners of the subject possession and occupation of the alienable and disposable land of the
land; that they inherited the subject land after their parents passed public domain since June 12, 1945 or earlier, without regard to whether
away; and that they, by themselves and through their predecessors-in- the land was susceptible to private ownership at that time. 23 Thus, for
interest, have been in open, public, and continuous possession of the registration under Section 14(1) to prosper, the applicant for original
subject land in the concept of owner for more than thirty (30) years. registration of title to land must establish the following: (1) that the
They presented witnesses to prove their claims. subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the
The RTC granted the application for the registration of the petitioners. public domain; (2) that the applicants by themselves and their
The Republic through the OSG, elevated an appeal to the CA. The CA predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
reversed and set aside the decision of RTC. notorious possession and occupation thereof; and (3) that the
possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
1945, or earlier.
ISSUE:
Here, the petitioners failed to present any competent evidence which
Whether the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court and could show that the subject land had been declared as part of the
dismissing the petitioners' application for registration of title. patrimonial property of the State. The DENR-NCR certification
presented by the petitioners only certified that the subject land was not
needed for forest purposes. This is insufficient because the law
HELD: mandates that to be subjected to acquisitive prescription, there must be
a declaration by the State that the land applied for is no longer intended
No. The Court has ruled that declaration of alienability and disposability for public service or for the development of the national wealth pursuant
is not enough for the registration of land under Section 14(2) of P.D. to Article 422 of the Civil Code. Clearly, the petitioners failed to prove
No. 1529. There must be an express declaration that the public that they acquired the subject land through acquisitive prescription.
dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the Thus, the same could not be registered under Section 14(2) of P.D. No.
development of the national wealth or that the property has been 1529.
converted into patrimonial property. This is only logical because
acquisitive prescription could only run against private properties, which Heirs of Tanyag v. Gabriel
include patrimonial properties of the State, but never against public
properties. Civil Law; Property; Ownership; Prescription; Words and Phrases;
Acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership by a
Section 14, paragraph 1 of P.D. No. 1529 provides: possessor through the requisite lapse of time. In order to ripen into
ownership, possession must be in the concept of an owner, public,
Sec. 14. Who may apply: The following persons may file in the proper peaceful and uninterrupted.—Acquisitive prescription is a mode of
Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, acquiring ownership by a possessor through the requisite lapse of time.
whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives: In order to ripen into ownership, possession must be in the concept of
an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Possession is open when
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in interest it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine. It is
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or
and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain occasional; exclusive when the adverse possessor can show exclusive
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and
benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally
known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood.
The party who asserts ownership by adverse possession must prove (“Lot 1”) with an area of 686 square meters was originally declared in
the presence of the essential elements of acquisitive prescription. the name of Jose Gabriel, while the second parcel (“Lot 2”) consisting
Same; Prescription; Civil Interruption; Civil interruption takes place of 147 square meters was originally declared in the name of Agueda
with the service of judicial summons to the possessor and not by filing Dinguinbayan. For several years, these lands lined with bamboo plants
of a mere Notice of Adverse Claim.—In the case of Heirs of Marcelina remained undeveloped and uninhabited.
Azardon-Crisologo v. Rañon, 532 SCRA 391 (2007), this Court citing Petitioners claimed that Lot 1 was owned by Benita Gabriel,
Article 1123 of the Civil Code held that civil interruption takes place with sister of Jose Gabriel, as part of her inheritance as declared by her in a
the service of judicial summons to the possessor and not by filing of a 1944 notarized instrument (“Affidavit of Sale”) whereby she sold the
mere Notice of Adverse Claim. Thus: Article 1123 of the Civil Code is said property to spouses Gabriel Sulit and Cornelia Sanga.
categorical. Civil interruption is produced by judicial summons to Lot 1 allegedly came into the possession of Benita Gabriel’s own
the possessor. Moreover, even with the presence of judicial daughter, Florencia Gabriel Sulit, when her father-in-law Gabriel Sulit
summons, Article 1124 sets limitations as to when such summons shall gave it to her as part of inheritance of his son, Eliseo Sulit who was
not be deemed to have been issued and shall not give rise to Florencia’s husband. Florencia Sulit sold the same lot to Bienvenido S.
interruption, to wit: 1) if it should be void for lack of legal solemnities; 2) Tanyag, father of petitioners, as evidenced by a notarized deed of sale
if the plaintiff should desist from the complaint or should allow the dated October 14, 1964. Petitioners then took possession of the
proceedings to lapse; or 3) if the possessor should be absolved from property, paid the real estate taxes due on the land and declared the
the complaint. Both Article 1123 and Article 1124 of the Civil Code same for tax purposes issued in 1969 in the name of Bienvenido’s wife,
underscore the judicial character of civil interruption. For civil Araceli C. Tanyag.
interruption to take place, the possessor must have received As to Lot 2, petitioners averred that it was sold by Agueda
judicial summons. None appears in the case at bar. The Notice of Dinguinbayan to Araceli Tanyag under Deed of Sale executed on
Adverse Claim which was filed by petitioners in 1977 is nothing more October 22, 1968. Thereupon, petitioners took possession of said
than a notice of claim which did not effectively interrupt respondents’ property and declared the same for tax purposes. Petitioners claimed
possession. Such a notice could not have produced civil interruption. to have continuously, publicly, notoriously and adversely occupied both
We agree in the conclusion of the RTC, which was affirmed by the Court Lots 1 and 2 through their caretaker Juana Quinones; they fenced the
of Appeals, that the execution of the Notice of Adverse Claim in 1977 premises and introduced improvements on the land.
did not toll or interrupt the running of the prescriptive period because Sometime in 1979, Jose Gabriel, father of respondents, secured
there remains, as yet, a necessity for a judicial determination of its in his name Lot 1 indicating therein an increased area of 1,763 square
judicial validity. What existed was merely a notice. There was no meters.
compliance with Article 1123 of the Civil Code. What is striking is On March 20, 2000, petitioners instituted a civil case alleging
that no action was, in fact, filed by petitioners against that respondents never occupied the whole 686 square meters of Lot 1
respondents. As a consequence, no judicial summons was and fraudulently caused the inclusion of Lot 2 in such that Lot 1
received by respondents. As aptly held by the Court of Appeals in its consisting of 686 square meters originally declared in the name of Jose
affirmance of the RTC’s ruling, the Notice of Adverse Claim cannot take Gabriel was increased to 1,763 square meters. They contended that
the place of judicial summons which produces the civil interruption the issuance of OCT No. 1035 on October 28, 1998 over the subject
provided for under the law. In the instant case, petitioners were not able land in the name of respondent’s heirs of Jose Gabriel was null and
to interrupt respondents’ adverse possession since 1962. The period void from the beginning.
acquisitive prescription from 1962 continued to run in On the other hand, respondents asserted that petitioners have
respondents’ favor despite the Notice of Adverse Claim. no cause of action against them for they have not established their
ownership over the subject property covered by a Torrens title in
Facts: respondents’ name. They further argued that OCT No. 1035 had
Subject of controversy are two adjacent parcels of land located at become unassailable one year after its issuance and petitioners failed
Ruhale, Barangay Calzada, Municipality of Taguig. The first parcel to establish that it was irregularly or unlawfully procured.
Issue:
Who has a better right over the subject property?

Ruling:
From 1969 until the filing of this complaint by the petitioners in
March 2000, the latter have been in continuous, public and adverse
possession of the subject land for 31 years. Having possessed the
property for the period and in the character required by law as sufficient
for extraordinary acquisitive prescription, petitioners have indeed
acquired ownership over the subject property. Such right cannot be
defeated by respondents’ acts of declaring again the property for tax
purposes in 1979 and obtaining a Torrens certificate of title in their
name in 1998.
Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, to successfully maintain an
action to recover the ownership of a real property, the person who
claims a better right to it must prove two (2) things: first, the identity of
the land claimed; and second, his title thereto. In regard to the first
requisite, in an accion reinvindicatoria, the person who claims that he
has a better right to the property must first fix the identity of the land he
is claiming by describing the location, area and boundaries thereof. In
this case, petitioners failed to identify Lot 2 by providing evidence of the
metes and bounds thereof, so that the same may be compared with the
technical description contained in OCT No. 1035, which would have
shown whether Lot 2 consisting of 147 square meters was erroneously
included in respondents’ title. The testimony of Agueda
Dinguinbayan’s son would not suffice because said witness merely
stated the boundary owners as indicated in the 1966 and 1967 tax
declarations of his mother. On his part, Arturo Tayag claimed that he
had the lots surveyed in the 1970s in preparation for the consolidation
of the two parcels. However, no such plan was presented in court.