Poyongan, Angelico G.

The Case of Christian and Anthony 

Anthony owned a parcel of unregistered land located on the Tarlac side of the boundary between
Tarlac and Pangasinan. His brother Bert owned the adjoining parcel of unregistered land on the
Pangasinan side. Anthony sold the Tarlac parcel to Christian in a deed of sale executed as a public
instrument by Anthony and Christian. After Christian paid in full the price of the sale, he took
possession of the Pangasinan parcel in the belief that it was the Tarlac parcel covered by the deed of
sale executed between Anthony and Chistian.

After 12 years, a controversy arose between Bert and Christian on the issue of ownership of the
Pangasinan parcel.  Bert claims a vested right of ownership over the Pangasinan parcel  because Bert
never sold that parcel to Christian or to anyone else. On the other hand, Christian claims a vested right
of ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by acquisitive prescription because Christian possessed this
parcel for over ten years under claim of ownership. Decide on the claims giving your reasons.

Answer:

In the case at bar, Christian cannot claim the Pangasinan Parcel since it was not part of the Tarlac parcel
sold to him by Anthony. Furthermore, Christian cannot claim ownership by acquisitive prescription
because in addition to the requisites common to ordinary and extraordinary acquisitive prescription
consisting of uninterrupted, peaceful, public, adverse and actual possession in the concept of owner,
ordinary acquisitive prescription for ten years requires:

1.) Possession in good faith and;

2.) Just title.

 "Just title" means that the adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one
of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership but the grantor was not the
owner or could not transmit any right (Art.1129. Civil Code).
 In this case, there is no "just title" and no "mode" that can be invoked by Christian for the
acquisition of the Pangasinan parcel.