127. Escritor vs HOW THE CASE STARTED NO.

Petitioner is not liable for damages for their

IAC, G.R. No. - Lot No. 2749, in Atimonan, Quezon, was the possession of the said lot during the time stated.
71283 subject of cadastral proceedings in the CFI. - It should be remembered that in the first decision of the
November 12, Escritor, as claimant, filed an answer thereto cadastral court dated May 15, 1958, the lot was
1987 declaring his ownership over the lot alleging that adjudicated in favor of Escritor, petitioners'
he acquired it by inheritance from his deceased predecessor-in-interest. In this decision, the said court
Bad faith of the father. found to its satisfaction that claimant Escritor acquired
possessor should - The CFI, in March 15, 1958 awarded the lot to the land by inheritance from his father
not prejudice his Escritor and in July 15, 1958, its decision became - The same Court declared that the above-mentioned
successors-in- final decision had become final. Significantly, nowhere
interest as the - On August 2, 1958, Acuna, the herein during the entire cadastral proceeding did anything
rule is that only respondent, filed a petition for review of the come up to suggest that the land belonged to any
personal decision contending that it was obtained by person other than Escritor
knowledge of the claimant Escritor through fraud and - Escritor honestly believed that he is the legal owner of
flaw in one's title misrepresentation the land. With this well-grounded belief of ownership,
or mode of - While the proceedings were going on, claimant he continued in his possession of the lot. This cannot be
acquisition can Escritor died. His heirs, the petitioners in this categorized as possession in bad faith
make him a case, took possession of the property - A possessor in bad faith is one in possession of property
possessor in bad - On February 16, 1971, the Court ruled in favor of knowing that his title thereto is defective. Here, there is
faith, for bad faith respondent Acuna, ordering petitioners to vacate no showing that Escritor knew of any flaw in his title
is not the land - Assuming that Escritor was a possessor in bad faith,
transmissible from - On October 13, 1975 respondent filed with the this should not prejudice his successors-in-interest,
one person to same Court a complaint for recovery of damages petitioners herein, as the rule is that only personal
another against petitioners for the fruits of the lot which knowledge of the flaw in one's title or mode of
was allegedly possessed by the latter unlawfully acquisition can make him a possessor in bad
for thirteen years faith, for bad faith is not transmissible from one
- The lower court rendered a decision dismissing person to another, not even to an heir.
Acuña's complaint for damages, finding that - Art 534 of the Civil Code explicitly provides, "one who
though petitioners enjoyed the fruits of the succeeds by hereditary title shall not suffer the
property, they were in good faith possessing consequences of the wrongful possession of the
under a just title, however, the IAC reversed such decedent, if it is not shown that he was aware of the
petition flaws affecting it
- IAC made the pronouncement that petitioners - Under Art 527 of the Civil Code, good faith is always
were possessors in bad faith from 1958 up to presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith on the
1971 and should be held accountable for part of a possessor rests the burden of proof
damages based on the statement of the - The lot was not awarded to Escritor on the basis of his
cadastral court in its 1971 decision, machinations. What is clear is that in the hearing of
readjudicating the lot to respondent Acuna, that January 22, 1958, the Court permitted Escritor to
"Miguel Escritor forcibly took possession of the adduce his evidence of ownership without opposing
land in May, 1958, and benefited from the evidence as the lot had become uncontested. Acuna
coconut trees thereon. himself failed to appear in this hearing because of a
ISSUE: misunderstanding with a lawyer. There is no finding
 WON the petitioners herein are liable to pay that such failure to appear was caused by petitioners in
damages to respondent Acuna for their this case
possession of the said lots from 1958 to 1971 - Respondent having failed to prove fraud and bad faith
on the part of petitioners, petitioners were possessors
 in good faith and should, therefore, not be held liable
for damages
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision
appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE