Ownership of a parcel of land may be acquired by the open, continuous, peaceful, and exclusive possession in the concept of an owner and in good faith for 10 years; or by the uninterrupted, adverse and notorious possession for 30 years without need of title or of good faith. The first is called ordinary acquisitive prescription while the latter is called extraordinary acquisitive prescription. This case is an example of extraordinary acquisitive prescription wherein possession in 30 years ripens into ownership.
The case involved a parcel of unregistered residential lot in a barangay up north originally declared for tax purposes in the name of Paeng. On May 2, 1936, Paeng sold the land to a childless couple, Tomas and Matilde who built their conjugal home thereon. Residing with the couple in said house was Tomas’ sister Tina. Since the couple died without any issue, the siblings of Tomas, Tina and Tibo acquired successional rights over the property.
But Tina and Tibo did not take any action to have the said property adjudicated in their favor. When Tibo also died without any known heir the property was left solely in favor of Tina who had two daughters Lina and Maura. Even with the death of Tina, Lina and Maura did not take any concrete action in exercising their successional rights over the property, although Bernie, the son of Maura, continued to live in the property.
Sometime in 1947, the spouses Tino and Pinang also started staying in the property according to Bernie himself. Then in 1962, Tino declared the subject property in his name for taxation purposes. Thus the tax declaration which was still in the name of Tomas was cancelled and a new tax declaration was issued in the name of Tino who paid the corresponding taxes thereon. In subsequent years, upon the death of Tino, Pinang declared the same in her name for taxation purposes and paid the corresponding taxes thereon. In 1977, Pinang even mortgaged the property with the PNB. It was only by this time or on August 31, 1977 when Lina finally executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim and Notice of Ownership and made known to others their supposed successional rights over the property. Except for this adverse claim nothing has been done by Lina or Maura or their children.
Pinang and her children on the other hand continued to stay in the house until 1985 when fire gutted the property and they had to transfer to Manila. Even then they continued to exercise acts of dominion over the property by visiting and looking after it and paying the taxes thereon. Later on, one of Pinang’s daughter learned that a tax declaration was already issued in the name of still another person who apparently bought the property from the heirs of Lina and Maura.
Hence on October 18, 1995, Pinang and her children filed an action against the new owner. They claimed they owned the property since 1962. They asked the Municipal Trial Court (MCTC) to remove the cloud of doubt over their title and ownership. It was only in this case that the heirs of Lina and Maura and her son Bernie finally intervened and finally asserted their ownership over the property against Pinang and her children.
After trial, the MCTC ruled in favor of the heirs of Lina and Maura. The court said that the adverse possession by Pinang and her children which started in 1962 did not ripen into ownership because it was interrupted in 1977 due to the filing of the adverse claim. Such possession from 1962 to 1977 could not ripen into ownership because it was in bad faith which requires possession of 30 years. Was the MCTC correct?
No. The notice of adverse claim filed by Lina in 1977 is nothing more than a notice of claim which did not effectively interrupt or toll the running of the prescriptive period. Under the Civil Code (Article 1123) the interruption that tolls the running of the period is the filing of the complaint or civil action against the possessor and his receipt of the judicial summons. Moreover even with the receipt of the judicial summons, the running of the period of prescription is not interrupted if the summons is void for lack of legal solemnities; if the plaintiff should desist or allow the proceedings to lapse ; or if the possessor should be absolved from the complaint (Article 1124).
Hence the Notice of Adverse claim cannot take the place of judicial summons which produces the civil interruption provided by law because there remains, as yet, a necessity for judicial determination of its validity in a civil action filed for that purpose. In this case, no action was in fact filed by Lina and Maura or their heirs against Pinang and her children. As a consequence no judicial summons was received by Pinang or her heirs.
Nothing was done by the heirs of Lina and Maura from the time their predecessors in interest died. It was only in 1977 when they attempted to call the attention of Pinang and her children which did not even operate as an interruption on the latter’s possession. From 1962 to the time they filed the complaint before the MCTC in 1995 and until the present time, Pinang and her children occupied the property without interruption in the concept of an owner thereby acquiring ownership via extraordinary acquisitive prescription. Plainly the heirs of Lina and Maura slept on their rights. The law comes to the succor only of the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights (Heirs of Arzadon-Crisologo etc. vs. Ranon et. al. G.R. 171068, September 5, 2007).
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net