Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mt.

Province
vs- CA, Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano and Juan
Valdez || G.R. No. 80294-95, Sept. 21, 1988
Facts:
-

The documents and records presented

reveal that the whole controversy
started when petitioner VICAR filed
with CFI-Baguio an application for
registration of title over four lots
found in La Trinidad, Benguet. The
lots were the sites of the Catholic
Church building, convents, high
school building, school gym and
dormitories, social hall, stonewalls,
etc. The private respondents (HEIRS)
filed their opposition, asserting
ownership and title thereto. The Land
Registration
confirmed
the
registration of the lots.
Heirs (ang kay Octaviano and Valdez)
appealed the decision of the land
registration court to CA. CA reversed
the decision, dismissed Vicars
application. The Heirs filed a motion
for reconsideration, praying for the
CA to order the registration of the 3rd
lot in the names of the Heirs of
Egmidio Octaviano; eight days later,
the Heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita
Valdez filed their motion for
consideration, praying that lots 2 and
3 be registered under their name. This
was denied by the CA, on the grounds
that there was no sufficient merit to
justify the reconsideration one way or
another. They also denied Octaviano
heirs reconsideration.
The SC denied both minute resolution
of Vicar and Heirs for lack of merit.
Upon the finality, the Octaviano Heirs
filed with CFI-Baguio a Motion For
Execution of Judgment, praying that

they be placed in possession of Lot 3.

The Court denied the motion.
Octaviano heirs presented their
witness, Fructuoso Valdez, who
testified on the alleged ownership of
the land in question by their
predecessor-in-interest, Egmidio, and
his written demand to Vicar for the
return of land to them. Vicar
countered that the land in question
was not covered by any title in
Egmidios name, and that Vicar has
been in possession of Lot 3 for 75
days continuously and peacefully.

ISSUE: Who is entitled to the ownership of

the lots in question?
HELD: It was not positively declared by the
CA that the private respondents were the
owners of the land, neither was it declared that
they were not owners of the land, but it held
that the predecessors of private respondents
were possessors of Lots 2 and 3, with claim of
ownership in good faith from 1906-1951.
Vicar was in possession as borrower in
commodatum up to 1951, when it repudiated
the trust by declaring the properties in its
name for taxation purposes. When Vicar
applied for registration over the lots in 1962, it
has been in possession in concept of owner for
only 11 years. While ordinary acquisitive
prescription requires possession for 10 years,
it is always with just title extraordinary
acquisitive prescription requires 30 years. The
findings of the CA may no longer be altered
by presentation of evidence because those
issues were resolved with finality a long time
ago. To ignore the principle of res judicata
shall open the door to endless litigation over
the same issues. Art. 555 of the NCC provides
that a possessor may lose his possession by
possession of another, subject to the
provisions of Art. 537, if the new possession

has lasted longer than one year. But the right

of real possession is not lost until after the
lapse of 10 years.
Vicar has not met the requirement of 30 years
possession for acquisitive prescription over
the lots, nor did it satisfy the 10 year
requirement
for
ordinary
acquisitive
prescription because it lacked the title. The
private respondents have Free Patent

Application for those lots since 1906, and the

predecessors have been in possession of the
questioned lots since then. The bailees failure
to return the subject matter of the
commodatum to the bailor did not mean
adverse possession, since they are holding the
property in trust for the bailor. The adverse
claim only arose in 1951, when it declared the
lots for taxation purposes.

G.R. No. 80294-95 September 21, 1988

CATHOLIC VICAR APOSTOLIC OF THE MOUNTAIN
PROVINCE, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF EGMIDIO OCTAVIANO AND JUAN
VALDEZ, respondents.
Valdez, Ereso, Polido & Associates for petitioner.
Claustro, Claustro, Claustro Law Office collaborating counsel for petitioner.
Jaime G. de Leon for the Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano.
Cotabato Law Office for the Heirs of Juan Valdez.

GANCAYCO, J.:
The principal issue in this case is whether or not a decision of the Court of Appeals
promulgated a long time ago can properly be considered res judicata by respondent
Court of Appeals in the present two cases between petitioner and two private
respondents.
Petitioner questions as allegedly erroneous the Decision dated August 31, 1987 of the
Ninth Division of Respondent Court of Appeals 1 in CA-G.R. No. 05148 [Civil Case
No. 3607 (419)] and CA-G.R. No. 05149 [Civil Case No. 3655 (429)], both for
Recovery of Possession, which affirmed the Decision of the Honorable Nicodemo T.
Ferrer, Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio and Benguet in Civil Case No.
3607 (419) and Civil Case No. 3655 (429), with the dispositive portion as follows:

WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant, Catholic Vicar

Apostolic of the Mountain Province to return and surrender Lot 2 of Plan Psu-194357
to the plaintiffs. Heirs of Juan Valdez, and Lot 3 of the same Plan to the other set of
plaintiffs, the Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano (Leonardo Valdez, et al.). For lack or
insufficiency of evidence, the plaintiffs' claim or damages is hereby denied. Said
defendant is ordered to pay costs. (p. 36, Rollo)
Respondent Court of Appeals, in affirming the trial court's decision, sustained the trial
court's conclusions that the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated May 4,1977 in
CA-G.R. No. 38830-R, in the two cases affirmed by the Supreme Court, touched on
the ownership of lots 2 and 3 in question; that the two lots were possessed by the
predecessors-in-interest of private respondents under claim of ownership in good faith
from 1906 to 1951; that petitioner had been in possession of the same lots as bailee in
commodatum up to 1951, when petitioner repudiated the trust and when it applied for
registration in 1962; that petitioner had just been in possession as owner for eleven
years, hence there is no possibility of acquisitive prescription which requires 10 years
possession with just title and 30 years of possession without; that the principle of res
judicata on these findings by the Court of Appeals will bar a reopening of these
questions of facts; and that those facts may no longer be altered.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideation of the respondent appellate court's Decision in
the two aforementioned cases (CA G.R. No. CV-05418 and 05419) was denied.
The facts and background of these cases as narrated by the trail court are as follows

... The documents and records presented reveal that the whole controversy started
when the defendant Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province (VICAR for
brevity) filed with the Court of First Instance of Baguio Benguet on September 5,
1962 an application for registration of title over Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Psu-194357,
situated at Poblacion Central, La Trinidad, Benguet, docketed as LRC N-91, said Lots
being the sites of the Catholic Church building, convents, high school building, school
gymnasium, school dormitories, social hall, stonewalls, etc. On March 22, 1963 the
Heirs of Juan Valdez and the Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano filed their
Answer/Opposition on Lots Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, asserting ownership and title
thereto. After trial on the merits, the land registration court promulgated its Decision,
dated November 17, 1965, confirming the registrable title of VICAR to Lots 1, 2, 3,
and 4.
The Heirs of Juan Valdez (plaintiffs in the herein Civil Case No. 3655) and the Heirs
of Egmidio Octaviano (plaintiffs in the herein Civil Case No. 3607) appealed the
decision of the land registration court to the then Court of Appeals, docketed as CAG.R. No. 38830-R. The Court of Appeals rendered its decision, dated May 9, 1977,
reversing the decision of the land registration court and dismissing the VICAR's

application as to Lots 2 and 3, the lots claimed by the two sets of oppositors in the
land registration case (and two sets of plaintiffs in the two cases now at bar), the first
lot being presently occupied by the convent and the second by the women's dormitory
and the sister's convent.
On May 9, 1977, the Heirs of Octaviano filed a motion for reconsideration praying the
Court of Appeals to order the registration of Lot 3 in the names of the Heirs of
Egmidio Octaviano, and on May 17, 1977, the Heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez
filed their motion for reconsideration praying that both Lots 2 and 3 be ordered
registered in the names of the Heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez. On August
12,1977, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Heirs
of Juan Valdez on the ground that there was "no sufficient merit to justify
reconsideration one way or the other ...," and likewise denied that of the Heirs of
Egmidio Octaviano.
Thereupon, the VICAR filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on
certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing his (its) application for
registration of Lots 2 and 3, docketed as G.R. No. L-46832, entitled 'Catholic Vicar
Apostolic of the Mountain Province vs. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Egmidio
Octaviano.'
From the denial by the Court of Appeals of their motion for reconsideration the Heirs
of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez, on September 8, 1977, filed with the Supreme
Court a petition for review, docketed as G.R. No. L-46872, entitled, Heirs of Juan
Valdez and Pacita Valdez vs. Court of Appeals, Vicar, Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano and
Annable O. Valdez.
On January 13, 1978, the Supreme Court denied in a minute resolution both petitions
(of VICAR on the one hand and the Heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez on the
other) for lack of merit. Upon the finality of both Supreme Court resolutions in G.R.
No. L-46832 and G.R. No. L- 46872, the Heirs of Octaviano filed with the then Court
of First Instance of Baguio, Branch II, a Motion For Execution of Judgment praying
that the Heirs of Octaviano be placed in possession of Lot 3. The Court, presided over
by Hon. Salvador J. Valdez, on December 7, 1978, denied the motion on the ground
that the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. No. 38870 did not grant the Heirs of
Octaviano any affirmative relief.
On February 7, 1979, the Heirs of Octaviano filed with the Court of Appeals a
petitioner for certiorari and mandamus, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 08890-R,
entitled Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano vs. Hon. Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. and Vicar. In its
decision dated May 16, 1979, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.
It was at that stage that the instant cases were filed. The Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano
filed Civil Case No. 3607 (419) on July 24, 1979, for recovery of possession of Lot 3;

and the Heirs of Juan Valdez filed Civil Case No. 3655 (429) on September 24, 1979,
likewise for recovery of possession of Lot 2 (Decision, pp. 199-201, Orig. Rec.).
In Civil Case No. 3607 (419) trial was held. The plaintiffs Heirs of Egmidio
Octaviano presented one (1) witness, Fructuoso Valdez, who testified on the alleged
ownership of the land in question (Lot 3) by their predecessor-in-interest, Egmidio
Octaviano (Exh. C ); his written demand (Exh. BB-4 ) to defendant Vicar for the
return of the land to them; and the reasonable rentals for the use of the land at
P10,000.00 per month. On the other hand, defendant Vicar presented the Register of
Deeds for the Province of Benguet, Atty. Nicanor Sison, who testified that the land in
question is not covered by any title in the name of Egmidio Octaviano or any of the
plaintiffs (Exh. 8). The defendant dispensed with the testimony of Mons.William
Brasseur when the plaintiffs admitted that the witness if called to the witness stand,
would testify that defendant Vicar has been in possession of Lot 3, for seventy-five
(75) years continuously and peacefully and has constructed permanent structures
thereon.
In Civil Case No. 3655, the parties admitting that the material facts are not in dispute,
submitted the case on the sole issue of whether or not the decisions of the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court touching on the ownership of Lot 2, which in effect
declared the plaintiffs the owners of the land constitute res judicata.
In these two cases , the plaintiffs arque that the defendant Vicar is barred from setting
up the defense of ownership and/or long and continuous possession of the two lots in
question since this is barred by prior judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
No. 038830-R under the principle of res judicata. Plaintiffs contend that the question
of possession and ownership have already been determined by the Court of Appeals
(Exh. C, Decision, CA-G.R. No. 038830-R) and affirmed by the Supreme Court (Exh.
1, Minute Resolution of the Supreme Court). On his part, defendant Vicar maintains
that the principle ofres judicata would not prevent them from litigating the issues of
long possession and ownership because the dispositive portion of the prior judgment
in CA-G.R. No. 038830-R merely dismissed their application for registration and
titling of lots 2 and 3. Defendant Vicar contends that only the dispositive portion of
the decision, and not its body, is the controlling pronouncement of the Court of
Appeals. 2
The alleged errors committed by respondent Court of Appeals according to petitioner
are as follows:
1. ERROR IN APPLYING LAW OF THE CASE AND RES JUDICATA;
2. ERROR IN FINDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT RULED THAT LOTS 2 AND 3
WERE ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE BUT WITHOUT DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE PRESENTED;

3. ERROR IN FINDING THAT PETITIONERS' CLAIM IT PURCHASED LOTS 2

AND 3 FROM VALDEZ AND OCTAVIANO WAS AN IMPLIED ADMISSION
THAT THE FORMER OWNERS WERE VALDEZ AND OCTAVIANO;
4. ERROR IN FINDING THAT IT WAS PREDECESSORS OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS WHO WERE IN POSSESSION OF LOTS 2 AND 3 AT LEAST
FROM 1906, AND NOT PETITIONER;
5. ERROR IN FINDING THAT VALDEZ AND OCTAVIANO HAD FREE PATENT
APPLICATIONS AND THE PREDECESSORS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
ALREADY HAD FREE PATENT APPLICATIONS SINCE 1906;
6. ERROR IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER DECLARED LOTS 2 AND 3 ONLY
IN 1951 AND JUST TITLE IS A PRIME NECESSITY UNDER ARTICLE 1134 IN
RELATION TO ART. 1129 OF THE CIVIL CODE FOR ORDINARY
ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION OF 10 YEARS;
7. ERROR IN FINDING THAT THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN
CA G.R. NO. 038830 WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT;
8. ERROR IN FINDING THAT THE DECISION IN CA G.R. NO. 038830
TOUCHED ON OWNERSHIP OF LOTS 2 AND 3 AND THAT PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS AND THEIR PREDECESSORS WERE IN POSSESSION OF
LOTS 2 AND 3 UNDER A CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP IN GOOD FAITH FROM
1906 TO 1951;
9. ERROR IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN IN POSSESSION OF
LOTS 2 AND 3 MERELY AS BAILEE BOR ROWER) IN COMMODATUM, A
GRATUITOUS LOAN FOR USE;
10. ERROR IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER IS A POSSESSOR AND BUILDER
IN GOOD FAITH WITHOUT RIGHTS OF RETENTION AND REIMBURSEMENT
AND IS BARRED BY THE FINALITY AND CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE
DECISION IN CA G.R. NO. 038830. 3
The petition is bereft of merit.
Petitioner questions the ruling of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Nos. 05148
and 05149, when it clearly held that it was in agreement with the findings of the trial
court that the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 4,1977 in CA-G.R. No.
38830-R, on the question of ownership of Lots 2 and 3, declared that the said Court of
Appeals Decision CA-G.R. No. 38830-R) did not positively declare private
respondents as owners of the land, neither was it declared that they were not owners
of the land, but it held that the predecessors of private respondents were possessors of

Lots 2 and 3, with claim of ownership in good faith from 1906 to 1951. Petitioner was
in possession as borrower in commodatum up to 1951, when it repudiated the trust by
declaring the properties in its name for taxation purposes. When petitioner applied for
registration of Lots 2 and 3 in 1962, it had been in possession in concept of owner
only for eleven years. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession for ten
years, but always with just title. Extraordinary acquisitive prescription requires 30
years. 4
On the above findings of facts supported by evidence and evaluated by the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R, affirmed by this Court, We see no error in
respondent appellate court's ruling that said findings are res judicatabetween the
parties. They can no longer be altered by presentation of evidence because those
issues were resolved with finality a long time ago. To ignore the principle of res
judicata would be to open the door to endless litigations by continuous determination
of issues without end.
An examination of the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 4, 1977, First
Division 5 in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R, shows that it reversed the trial court's
Decision 6 finding petitioner to be entitled to register the lands in question under its
ownership, on its evaluation of evidence and conclusion of facts.
The Court of Appeals found that petitioner did not meet the requirement of 30 years
possession for acquisitive prescription over Lots 2 and 3. Neither did it satisfy the
requirement of 10 years possession for ordinary acquisitive prescription because of
the absence of just title. The appellate court did not believe the findings of the trial
court that Lot 2 was acquired from Juan Valdez by purchase and Lot 3 was acquired
also by purchase from Egmidio Octaviano by petitioner Vicar because there was
absolutely no documentary evidence to support the same and the alleged purchases
were never mentioned in the application for registration.
By the very admission of petitioner Vicar, Lots 2 and 3 were owned by Valdez and
Octaviano. Both Valdez and Octaviano had Free Patent Application for those lots
since 1906. The predecessors of private respondents, not petitioner Vicar, were in
possession of the questioned lots since 1906.
There is evidence that petitioner Vicar occupied Lots 1 and 4, which are not in
question, but not Lots 2 and 3, because the buildings standing thereon were only
constructed after liberation in 1945. Petitioner Vicar only declared Lots 2 and 3 for
taxation purposes in 1951. The improvements oil Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 were paid for by the
Bishop but said Bishop was appointed only in 1947, the church was constructed only
in 1951 and the new convent only 2 years before the trial in 1963.

When petitioner Vicar was notified of the oppositor's claims, the parish priest offered
to buy the lot from Fructuoso Valdez. Lots 2 and 3 were surveyed by request of
petitioner Vicar only in 1962.
Private respondents were able to prove that their predecessors' house was borrowed
by petitioner Vicar after the church and the convent were destroyed. They never asked
for the return of the house, but when they allowed its free use, they became bailors
in commodatum and the petitioner the bailee. The bailees' failure to return the subject
matter of commodatum to the bailor did not mean adverse possession on the part of
the borrower. The bailee held in trust the property subject matter of commodatum.
The adverse claim of petitioner came only in 1951 when it declared the lots for
taxation purposes. The action of petitioner Vicar by such adverse claim could not
ripen into title by way of ordinary acquisitive prescription because of the absence of
just title.
The Court of Appeals found that the predecessors-in-interest and private respondents
were possessors under claim of ownership in good faith from 1906; that petitioner
Vicar was only a bailee in commodatum; and that the adverse claim and repudiation of
trust came only in 1951.
We find no reason to disregard or reverse the ruling of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. No. 38830-R. Its findings of fact have become incontestible. This Court declined
to review said decision, thereby in effect, affirming it. It has become final and
executory a long time ago.
Respondent appellate court did not commit any reversible error, much less grave
abuse of discretion, when it held that the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
No. 38830-R is governing, under the principle of res judicata, hence the rule, in the
present cases CA-G.R. No. 05148 and CA-G.R. No. 05149. The facts as supported by
evidence established in that decision may no longer be altered.
WHEREFORE AND BY REASON OF THE FOREGOING, this petition is DENIED
for lack of merit, the Decision dated Aug. 31, 1987 in CA-G.R. Nos. 05148 and
05149, by respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 80294 March 23, 1990

CATHOLIC VICAR APOSTOLIC OF THE MOUNTAIN

PROVINCE, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF EGMIDIO OCTAVIANO and JUAN
VALDEZ, respondents.
Valdez, Ereso, Polido & Associates for petitioner. Sabino Padilla, Jr. collaborating
counsel for petitioner. Jaime G. de Leon for the Heirs of E. Octaviano. Fernando P.
Cabato for the Heirs of Juan Valdez.

GANCAYCO, J.:
Before the Court are a motion for reconsideration and a supplemental motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioner relating to the decision of the Court dated
September 21, 1988. The comment and opposition thereto have been filed by the
private respondents and a reply was filed by petitioner.
Petitioner argues that the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No.
38830-R are: (1) contrary to the law; (2) contrary to the findings of the trial court; (3)
contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 08890-R; (4)
contrary to the admissions of the parties; and (5) based on a clear misapprehension of
historical and ecclesiastical facts made of judicial notice, which are well within the
exceptions consistently adhered to by this Court as in Republic vs. Court of Appeals. 1
The Court finds no merit in this contention. The said decision of the Court of Appeals
dated May 4, 1977 in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R was already elevated to this Court by
petitioner through a petition for review in G.R. No. L-46832 entitled Catholic Vicar
Apostolic of the Mountain Province vs. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Egmidio
Octaviano, while the heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez also filed a petition for
review of the same decision in this Court docketed as G.R. No. L-46872
entitled Heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez vs. CA, et al. In a minute resolution
dated January 13, 1978, this Court denied both petitions for lack of merit.
It is in paid petition for review wherein the petitioner should have questioned the
findings of facts of the appellate court in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R but since said petition
had been denied outright, the aforestated decision of the appellate court which has
long become final and executory, is res judicata as between the parties and the
findings of facts therein are conclusive. Thus, the factual findings in said final
judgment cannot be reviewed anew in the present proceedings.

The relevant question that should now be asked is, considering the aforestated
decision of the appellate court and guided by the findings of facts therein, who is
entitled to the possession of the lots in question? Who owns these lots?
CA-G.R. No. 38830-R was a land registration case where petitioner and private
respondents were asking for confirmation of their alleged imperfect titles to the lots in
question under Section 49 (b) of the Public Land Act. 2
In the said decision, the appellate court found that the petitioner was not entitled to
confirmation of its imperfect title to Lots 2 and 3. In separate motions for
reconsideration filed by private respondents Heirs of Octaviano and Heirs of Juan
Valdez relating to the same decision, they also asked that said two lots be registered in
their names. On August 12, 1977, the Court of Appeals denied both motions.
Effectively, therefore, in the said decision the appellate court ruled that neither the
petitioner nor the private respondents are entitled to the confirmation of imperfect title
over said two lots. That is now res judicata.
What is the nature of these two lots? Pursuant to the said decision in CA-G.R. No.
38830-R, the two lots in question remained part of the public lands. This is the only
logical conclusion when the appellate court found that neither the petitioner nor
private respondents are entitled to confirmation of imperfect title over said lots.
Hence, the Court finds the contention of petitioner to be well taken in that the trial
court and the appellate court have no lawful basis in ordering petitioner to return and
surrender possession of said lots to private respondents. Said property being a public
land its disposition is subject to the provision of the Public Land Act, as amended. 3
The present actions that were instituted in the Regional Trial Court by private
respondents are actions for recovery of possession (accion publiciana) and not for
recovery of ownership (accion reivindicatoria).
In the aforestated decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R, the
following are among the findings of facts:
9th. The totality of foregoing together with evidence of oppositors must convince this
Court that as to lots 2 and 3, it was oppositors who were possessors under bona
fide claim of ownership thru their predecessors since around 1906; and that appellee
came in only in the concept of a borrower incommodatum, but that appellee took it
upon itself to claim and repudiate the trust sometime in 1951, and since from that time
at least, possession of oppositors had been interrupted, neither can they claim
registration under Sec. 48, par. b of the Public Land Law, Com. Act 141, as amended
by R.A. 1942; this must be the final result, and there would be no more need to rule
on the errors impugning the personality of appellee to secure registration; 4

From the foregoing, it appears that the petitioner was in possession of the said
property as borrower in commodatum from private respondents since 1906 but in
1951 petitioner repudiated the trust when it declared the property for tax purposes
under its name. When it filed its application for registration of the said property in
1962, petitioner had been in adverse possession of the same for at least 11 years.
Article 555 of the Civil Code provides as follows:
Art. 555. A possessor may lose his possession:
(1) By the abandonment of the thing;
(2) By an assignment made to another either by onerous or gratuitous title;
(3) By the destruction or total loss of the thing or because it goes out of commerce;
(4) By the possession of another, subject to the provisions of Article 537, if the new
possession has lasted longer than one year. But the real right of possession is not lost
till after the lapse of ten years. (460a) (Emphasis supplied.)
From the foregoing provision of the law, particularly paragraph 4 thereof, it is clear
that the real right of possession of private respondents over the property was lost or no
longer exists after the lapse of 10 years that petitioner had been in adverse possession
thereof. Thus, the action for recover of possession of said property filed by private
respondents against petitioner must fail.
The Court, therefore, finds that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in
declaring the private respondents to be entitled to the possession thereof. Much less
can they pretend to be owners thereof. Said lots are part of the public domain.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED and the decision of this
Court dated September 21, 1988 is hereby set aside and another judgment is hereby
rendered reversing and setting aside the decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R.
Nos. 05148-49 dated August 31, 1987 and dismissing the complaints for recovery of
possession, without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.