Facts:
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.
Issue:
Whether or not there is an error in finding that petitioner had been in
possession of lots 2 and 3 merely as bailee borrower in commodatum, a
gratuitous loan for use
Held:
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment