Lamsis V Dong e Digest

LAMSIS vs.
DONG-E
GR No. 173021 – October 20, 2010
Del Castillo
SUBJECT:
FACTS:
 This case involves a conflict of ownership and possession over an untitled parcel of
land.
 Petitioners are the actual occupants of the subject land and respondent is claiming
ownership thereof and is seeking to recover its possession from petitioners.
 According to respondent, her family’s ownership and occupation of the land can be
traced as far back as 1922 to her late grandfather, Ap-ap. Upon Ap-ap’s death, the
property was inherited by his children, who obtained a survey plan and declared the
property for tax purposes in the name of “Teirs of Ap-ap.”
 The heirs of Ap-ap then executed a deed of quitclaim in favor of respondent’s father.
 That the heirs of Gilbert Semon tolerated the acts of their first cousins, petitioner’s
in-laws, to stay on a Lot No. 1 together with their respective families.
 When Gilbert Semon died, his children extrajudicially partitioned the property
among themselves and allotted Lot No. 1 in favor of Margarita.
 When the petitioner began expanding their occupation on the subject property and
selling portions thereof, Margarita filed a complaint for recovery of ownership,
possession, reconveyance, and damages.
 According to the petitioner it is not the decedent of the respondent who is the
owner of the subject property, it was a person name “Smith” – To debunk the claim
of petitioner, respondent presented a Resolution from Land Management Office
denying smith application for recognition of the ancestral land. (further evidence
Resolution of Community Special Task Force on Ancestral Lands of the DENR –
acting favorably in their favor)
RTC: preponderates in favor of respondents long-time possession of and claim of

ownership over the subject property. The survey plan, tax declarations, and the
documentary evidence of the transfer of the land from the heirs of ap-ap to respondent
father were given credence.
CA: Ruled that the respondent was able to discharge her burden in proving her title and
interest to the subject property.
ISSUE:
(1) WON petitioner have acquired the subject property by prescription
(2) WON the ancestral land claim pending before the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) should take precedence over the reivindicatory action.
HELD:
Assuming that the subject land may be acquired by prescription, we cannot accept
petitioners’ claim of acquisition by prescription. Petitioners admitted that they had
occupied the property by tolerance of the owner thereof. Having made this admission, they
cannot claim that they have acquired the property by prescription unless they can prove
acts of repudiation. It is settled that possession, in order to ripen into ownership, must be
in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Possession not in the
concept of owner, such as the one claimed by petitioners, cannot ripen into ownership by
acquisitive prescription, unless the juridical relation is first expressly repudiated and such
repudiation has been communicated to the other party. Acts of possessory character
executed due to license or by mere tolerance of the owner are inadequate for purposes of
acquisitive prescription. Possession by tolerance is not adverse and such possessory acts,
no matter how long performed, do not start the running of the period of prescription.68
In the instant case, petitioners made no effort to allege much less prove any act of
repudiation sufficient for the reckoning of the acquisitive prescription. At most, we can find
on record the sale by petitioners Delfin and Agustin of parts of the property to petitioners
Maynard and Jose; but the same was done only in 1998, shortly before respondent filed a
case against them. Hence, the 30-year period necessary for the operation of acquisitve
prescription had yet to be attained.
It bears stressing at this point that ownership should not be confused with a certificate of
title. Registering land under the Torrens system does not create or vest title because
registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely an
evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein. Corollarily,
any question involving the issue of ownership must be threshed out in a separate suit x x x
The trial court will then conduct a full-blown trial wherein the parties will present their
respective evidence on the issue of ownership of the subject properties to enable the court
to resolve the said issue. x x x72 (Emphasis supplied)
The fact that the [respondents] were able to secure [TCTs over the property] did not
operate to vest upon them ownership of the property. The Torrens system does not create
or vest title. It has never been recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership x x x If the
[respondents] wished to assert their ownership, they should have filed a judicial action for
recovery of possession and not merely to have the land registered under their respective
names. x x x Certificates of title do not establish ownership.73 (Emphasis supplied)

Lamsis V Dong e Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lamsis V Dong e Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lamsis V Dong e Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAMSIS vs.

RTC: preponderates in favor of respondents long-time possession of and claim of

You might also like