Source: https://attybulao.com/2012/01/23/case-2011-0240-jaime-abalos-and-spouses-felix-salazar-and-consuelo-salazar-glicerio-abalos-heirs-of-aquilino-abalos-namely-segunda-bautista-rogelio-abalos-dolores-a-rosario-felicidad-abalos/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:23:40+00:00

Document:
CASE 2011-0240: JAIME ABALOS AND SPOUSES FELIX SALAZAR AND CONSUELO SALAZAR, GLICERIO ABALOS, HEIRS OF AQUILINO ABALOS, NAMELY: SEGUNDA BAUTISTA, ROGELIO ABALOS, DOLORES A. ROSARIO, FELICIDAD ABALOS, ROBERTO ABALOS, JUANITO ABALOS, TITA ABALOS, LITA A. DELA CRUZ AND HEIRS OF AQUILINA ABALOS, NAMELY: ARTURO BRAVO, PURITA B. MENDOZA, LOURDES B. AGANON, CONSUELO B. SALAZAR, PRIMA B. DELOS SANTOS, THELMA APOSTOL AND GLECERIO ABALOS VS. HEIRS OF VICENTE TORIO, NAMELY: PUBLIO TORIO, LIBORIO TORIO, VICTORINA TORIO, ANGEL TORIO, LADISLAO TORIO, PRIMO TORIO AND NORBERTO TORIO (G.R. NO. 175444, 14 DECEMBER 2011, PERALTA, J.) SUBJECT/S: ORDINARY AND EXTRAORDINARY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION; EFFECT OF NOTARIZATION; WHEN SC CAN REVIEW FINDINGS OF FACT. (BRIEF TITLE: ABALOS VS. HEIRS OF TORIO).
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91887 are AFFIRMED.
WHAT ARE THE 2 KINDS OF ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION?
WHAT IS ORDINARY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION?
WHAT IS EXTRAORDINARY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION?
3. UNINTERRUPTED ADVERSE POSSESSION FOR 30 YEARS.
WHAT IS POSSESSION IN GOOD FAITH?
WHEN IS THERE JUST TITLE?
IS PETITIONER THE OWNER OF SUBJECT LAND BY ORDINARY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION?
NO, BECAUSE HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE OWNER WAS ANOTHER PERSON WHO MERELY TOLERATED HIS OCCUPATION OF THE THE PROPERTY.
CAN PETITIONERS’ POSSESSION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY BE CONSIDERED EXTRAORDINARY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION?
NO. BECAUSE THEIR EARLIEST TAX DECLARATION WAS IN 1974. FROM SUCH DATE THE 30 YEAR PERIOD ENDS IN 2004. BUT THE CASE WAS FILED IN 1996.
Moreover, the CA correctly held that even if the character of petitioners’ possession of the subject property had become adverse, as evidenced by their declaration of the same for tax purposes under the names of their predecessors-in-interest, their possession still falls short of the required period of thirty (30) years in cases of extraordinary acquisitive prescription. Records show that the earliest Tax Declaration in the name of petitioners was in 1974. Reckoned from such date, the thirty-year period was completed in 2004. However, herein respondents’ complaint was filed in 1996, effectively interrupting petitioners’ possession upon service of summons on them.24 Thus, petitioners’ possession also did not ripen into ownership, because they failed to meet the required statutory period of extraordinary prescription.
WHAT EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED IN ESTABLISHING PRESCRIPTION?
This Court has held that the evidence relative to the possession upon which the alleged prescription is based, must be clear, complete and conclusive in order to establish the prescription.25 In the present case, the Court finds no error on the part of the CA in holding that petitioners failed to present competent evidence to prove their alleged good faith in neither possessing the subject lot nor their adverse claim thereon. Instead, the records would show that petitioners’ possession was by mere tolerance of respondents and their predecessors-in-interest.
PETITIONERS ATTACKED THE DUE EXECUTION AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE DEED OF SALE OF RESPONDENTS IN THEIR COMMENT TO RESPONDENTS’ PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED AT CA. IS THIS PROPER.
NO. POINTS OF LAW, THEORIES, ISSUES, AND ARGUMENTS NOT ADEQUATELY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE TRIAL COURT NEED NOT BE, AND ORDINARILY WILL NOT BE, CONSIDERED BY A REVIEWING COURT.26 THEY CANNOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL.
SUPPOSE THE ISSUE OF DUE EXECUTION AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE SUBJECT DEED OF SALE WAS PROPERLY RAISED, WILL THE FINDINGS OF THE C.A. BE REVERSED?
NO. BECAUSE THE DEED OF SALE WAS NOTARIZED.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE NOTARIZATION OF THE DEED OF SALE?
Based on the foregoing, respondents [Jaime Abalos and the Spouses Felix and Consuelo Salazar] have not inherited the disputed land because the same was shown to have already been validly sold to Marcos Torio, who, thereupon, assigned the same to his son Vicente, the father of petitioners [herein respondents]. A valid sale was amply established and the said validity subsists because the deed evidencing the same was duly notarized.
Indeed, settled is the rule in our jurisdiction that a notarized document has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and to overcome the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise, the document should be upheld.29 In the instant case, petitioners’ bare denials will not suffice to overcome the presumption of regularity of the assailed deed of sale.
THE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER PETITIONERS POSSESS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS OWNERS, OR WHETHER THEY OCCUPY THE SAME BY MERE TOLERANCE OF RESPONDENTS, IS A QUESTION OF FACT. IS CA RULING ON THIS REVIEWABLE BY THE SUPREME COURT?
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the Decision1 dated June 30, 2006 and Resolution2 dated November 13, 2006 by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 91887. The assailed Decision reversed and set aside the Decision3 dated June 14, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69, while the questioned Resolution denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
After the issues were joined, trial ensued.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration[s], the Court adjudged the case in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and defendants-intervenors are ordered to turn over the land in question to the plaintiffs (Lot Nos. 869 and 870, Cad. 467-D. Binmaley Cadastre located in Brgy. San Isidro Norte, Binmaley, Pangasinan with an area of 2,950 sq. m., more or less, bounded and described in paragraph 3 of the Complaint[)]; ordering the defendants and defendants-intervenors to remove their respective houses standing on the land in dispute; further ordering the defendants and defendants-intervenors, either singly or jointly to pay the plaintiffs land rent in the amount of P12,000.00 per year to be reckoned starting the year 1996 until defendants and defendants-intervenors will finally vacate the premises; furthermore, defendants and defendants-intervenors are also ordered to pay, either singly or jointly, the amount of P10,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
Jaime and the Spouses Salazar appealed the Decision of the MTC with the RTC of Lingayen, Pangasinan.8 Herein petitioners, who were intervenors, did not file an appeal.
In its Decision dated June 14, 2005, the RTC ruled in favor of Jaime and the Spouses Salazar, holding that they have acquired the subject property through prescription. Accordingly, the RTC dismissed herein respondents’ complaint.
Aggrieved, herein respondents filed a petition for review with the CA assailing the Decision of the RTC.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 14, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, Lingayen, Pangasinan is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In its stead, a new one is entered reinstating the Decision dated December 10, 2003 of the Municipal Trial Court of Binmaley, Pangasinan.
Jaime and the Spouses Salazar filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated November 13, 2006.
The main issue raised by petitioners is whether they and their predecessors-in-interest possessed the disputed lot in the concept of an owner, or whether their possession is by mere tolerance of respondents and their predecessors-in-interest. Corollarily, petitioners claim that the due execution and authenticity of the deed of sale upon which respondents’ predecessors-in-interest derived their ownership were not proven during trial.
Preliminarily, the Court agrees with the observation of respondents that some of the petitioners in the instant petition were the intervenors11 when the case was filed with the MTC. Records would show that they did not appeal the Decision of the MTC.12 The settled rule is that failure to perfect an appeal renders the judgment final and executory.13 Hence, insofar as the intervenors in the MTC are concerned, the judgment of the MTC had already become final and executory.
It also bears to point out that the main issue raised in the instant petition, which is the character or nature of petitioners’ possession of the subject parcel of land, is factual in nature.
Doubtless, the issue of whether petitioners possess the subject property as owners, or whether they occupy the same by mere tolerance of respondents, is a question of fact. Thus, it is not reviewable.
In the present case, the findings of fact of the MTC and the CA are in conflict with those of the RTC.
After a review of the records, however, the Court finds that the petition must fail as it finds no error in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the CA and the MTC.
Petitioners claim that they have acquired ownership over the disputed lot through ordinary acquisitive prescription.
1Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. de Leon, with Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, concurring ; Annex “J” to Petition, rollo, pp. 87-98.
2Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. de Leon, with Associate Justices Asuncion-Vicente and Vicente S.E. Veloso, concurring; Annex “L” to Petition, id. at 107-109.
8See Notice of Appeal, id. at 274.
11Except for Jaime Abalos and the spouses Felix and Consuelo Salazar, all petitioners in the instant petition were intervenors in the case filed with the MTC.
12See Notice of Appeal, records, p. 274.
13Province of Camarines Sur v. Heirs of Agustin Pato, G.R. No. 151084, July 2, 2010, 622 SCRA 644, 652, citing M.A. Santander Construction, Inc. v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 136477, November 10, 2004, 441 SCRA 525, 530.
14Heirs of Felicidad Vda. de Dela Cruz v. Heirs of Pedro T. Fajardo, G.R. No. 184966, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 463, 470.
15Spouses. Andrada v. Pilhino Sales Corporation, G.R. No. 156448, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 1, 10.
18Civil Code, Art. 1137; Tan v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 158929, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 327, 336; Aguirre v. Heirs of Lucas Villanueva, G.R. No. 169898, October 27, 2006, 505 SCRA 855, 860.
19Villanueva v. Branoco, G.R. No. 172804, January 24, 2011, 640 SCRA 308, 320; Imuan v. Cereno, G.R. No. 167995, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 423, 433.
21Exhibit “K,” records, p. 264.
22Lamsis v. Donge-e, G.R. No. 173021, October 20, 2010, 634 SCRA 154, 172.
23Esguerra v. Manantan, G.R. No. 158328, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 561, 573; Marcelo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131803, April 14, 1999, 305 SCRA 800, 807-808.
25Heirs of Juanita Padilla v. Magdua, G.R. No. 176858, September 15, 2010, 630 SCRA 573, 584.
26American Home Insurance Co. of New York v. F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc., G.R. No. 174926, August 10, 2011.
29Spouses Palada v. Solidbank Corporation, G.R. No. 172227, June 29, 2011; Emilio v. Rapal, G.R. No. 181855, March 30, 2010, 617 SCRA 199, 202-203; Heirs of the Deceased Spouses Vicente S. Arcilla and Josefa Asuncion Arcilla v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 162886, August 11, 2008, 561 SCRA 545, 564.
« CASE 2011-0239: JEBSENS MARITIME INC., represented by MS. ARLENE ASUNCION and/or ALLIANCE MARINE SERVICES, LTD. VS. ENRIQUE UNDAG (G.R. NO. 191491, 14 DECEMBER 2011, MENDOZA, J.) SUBJECT: DISABILITY BENEFITS TO SEAMEN. (BRIEF TITLE: JEBSENS VS. UNDAG).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 1137
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.