Owner without a title

This is a case of two claimants to the same parcel of land. One had no certificate of title but possessed and cultivated the lot while the other acquired a title to it but were not in possession. To whom should the lot be awarded?

The land involved here consisted of 187,765 square meters known as lot 379. It was originally possessed and cultivated by Mang Tiago a bachelor, who acquired rights over the said parcel of land on April 25, 1925 by virtue of a decision of the cadastral court. From 1925 to 1928, Mang Tiago cultivated 5 hectares of lot 379 while he was living with the family of Doro his godson. In 1929 when Mang Tiago transferred to another province he orally bequeathed his rights over lot 379 to Doro and entrusted to the latter a copy of the decision. Since Doro was then only 14 years old, his father helped him cultivate the land. Their family then cleared the land, built a house and planted coconut trees, corn, palay and vegetables thereon. From 1929 Doro and later his wife Rosa and their 11 children possessed lot 379. In fact in 1960 Mang Tiago even ratified the transfer of his rights over the land to Doro by executing an affidavit of quitclaim. Thus in 1961 Doro already declared lot 379 for taxation purposes in his name and continued to possess and cultivate it enduring disasters and even conflagration that razed some of their crops.

In 1970 however, Doro discovered that the spouses Nano and Julia were able to obtain a certificate of title over lot 379. It turned out that on November 11, 1964, Mang Tiago who was then already 81 years old still sold the questioned lot to Nano and Julia. Using the same decision of the cadastral court dated April 25, 1925, the said spouses had the cadastral proceedings reopened so that the corresponding title to the said lot could be issued to them by virtue of that sale made by Mang Tiago to them. Thus on September 13, 1965, the cadastral court adjudicated the lot in favor of Nano and Julia in whose favor Original Certificate of Title 0-11844 was issued.

Doro did not immediately file a case against the couple because he was advised to just remain in the land and pay the corresponding taxes thereon. But when the caretaker appointed by Nano tried to plant coconut trees on the property and till the land and later upon the death of Nano and Julia and the transfer of the title to their children as heirs under TCT T-237330, Doro and Rosa already filed an action for re-conveyance of real property and or quieting of title with damages against the heirs of Nano and Julia.

The heirs however contended that Doro did not acquire title over lot 379 either by donation or acquisitive prescription; that Doro’s bare allegation that Mang Tiago orally bequeathed to him said lot is insufficient to prove such transfer of ownership; and even assuming that it was really donated to Doro in 1929 or in the 1960 affidavit, said conveyance was void for lack of formalities of a valid donation. And since there was no valid donation, the heirs claimed that Doro could not have possessed the land adversely, exclusively and in the concept of an owner, a vital requisite before one may acquire title by acquisitive prescription. Were the heirs correct?

No. Since 1929 Doro cultivated lot 379, built his house and raised his 11 children thereon. From 1929 to 1960 Mang Tiago never challenged Doro’s possession of said lot nor demanded or received the produce of the land. For 31 years Mang Tiago never exercised any act of ownership over said lot. And in 1960 he confirmed that he is no longer interested in asserting any right over the land by executing in favor of Doro a quitclaim. Doro’s open, continuous, exclusive, notorious possession and occupation of lot 379, in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years vested him and his heirs, title over said lot (Sec 48 b, C.A. 141 as amended by RA 1942). By this kind of possession, a possessor is deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a government grant of the said land which was an agricultural land of the public domain. The confirmation proceedings of his title would in truth be a little more than a formality, and registration thereunder would not confer title but simply recognize a title already vested.

While the oral donation in 1929 and the quitclaim in 1960 ceding lot 379 are void for non-compliance with the formalities of donation, they nevertheless explain Doro and his family’s long years of occupation of said lot and the nature of their possession thereof. Said donation may serve as basis of acquisitive prescription when on the strength thereof the donee has taken possession of the property adversely and in the concept of owner.

Considering that the lot became the property of Doro in 1959 by acquisitive prescription, Mang Tiago had no more right to sell the same to the spouses Nano and Julia in 1964. Consequently, Nano and Julia and their heirs did not acquire ownership over lot 379 and the titles issued in their names are void. The spring cannot rise higher than the source (Spouses Rumarate et.al vs Hernandez et.al. G.R.168222, April 18, 2006).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]