ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 143295. July 19, 2000]

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 19, 2000.

G.R. No. 143295 (Eusebio and Susana Laurel vs. Sps. Tiburcio Acuna and Paula Ira, Directors of Lands.)

Petitioners assails the decision of the Court of Appeal affirming the decision of the regional trial court, thus declaring private respondents to have established their registrable title over the subject property.

The subject of the present controversy are 2 parcels of land, one measuring 1,432 square meters located in Barrio Libtong and the other 874 square meters located in Barrio Hulo both in Meycauayan, Bulacan, which private respondents sought to be registered by filing a complaint for registration and confirmation of title.

The Solicitor General, representing the Director of Lands, and petitioners filed separate oppositions.

Petitioners claimed that they are the owners of 1,318 square meters of the lot in Barrio Libtong having inherited the same from their father, a certain Catalino Laurel and that they have been residing on said lot in a house constructed thereat occupying 318 square meters.

On the other hand, the Solicitor General failed to present any evidence.

Upon trial, it was found that the subject property was sold by petitioners to a certain Leonor Molina on May 6, 1964 as evidence by a "Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan". On June 29, 1967, Leonor Molina sold the same lot to private respondents and said property was thereafter declared for taxation purposes in the name of private respondents and the latter have been in open continuous possession of the property. Hence, the trial court granted the application for registration.

Displeased, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but to no avail. A subsequent appeal before the Court of Appeals failed.

Thus, the instant petition, which must likewise fail.

Initially, the Court notes that the instant petition was filed late on July 10, 2000, the due date being June 9, 2000, due to the previous denial of petitioners' motion for extension of time within which to file the petition. Then, too, the petition was filed without the certification on non-forum shopping. These lapses, standing alone, are sufficient to cause the outright dismissal of the petition.

But even if the Court were minded to ignore these technical flaws, the petition must still fail. Petitioners raise the issue of whether or not the alleged possessory acts of private respondents as regards the 318-square-meter lot, wherein petitioners' houses is erected, in the concept of owner are sufficient to confer ownership by prescription.

Article 1138 of the Civil Code provides:

The three predecessors-in-interest of private respondents were Leonor Molina and petitioners Susana and Eusebio Laurel themselves, as well as petitioners' father, Catalino Laurel. Private respondents acquired the property in dispute by purchase from Leonor Molina. Leonor Molina succeeded to the rights of petitioners Susana and Eusebio Laurel. Susana and Eusebio Laurel acquired their rights from their father Catalino Laurel.

While it may be true that petitioners are still occupying a portion of Lot 4304, such occupancy is no longer in the concept of that of an owner. Whatever right they had over the lot was already transferred when they sold it to Leonor Molina who in turn transferred it to private respondents. The sale by petitioners to Leonor Molina was absolute. There was no reservation whatsoever that the portion on which their house was constructed was excluded from the sale.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.