Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Virtucio Vs Alegarbes-Digest
Virtucio Vs Alegarbes-Digest
PROPERTY
JESUS VIRTUCIO vs. JOSE ALEGARBES
I. Parties:
Petitioner: JESUS VIRTUCIO
Respondent: JOSE ALEGARBES
II. Synopsis/Key Facts:
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeks to reverse and set aside the February 25,
2009 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. 72613, reversing and setting aside the
February 19, 2001 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Isabela, Basi Ian (RTC), in Civil
Case No. 685-627, an action for "Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Preliminary Injunction."
Alegarbes was granted a 24-hectare Homestead Patent in 1952. In 1955 however, the land was
subdivided into three (3) lots Lot Nos. 138,139 and 140 as a consequence of public land
subdivision. Lot 139 was allocated to Custodio, and Lot 140 was allocated to petitioner Virtucio.
Both Custodio and Virtucio filed Homestead Application and were granted.
Alegarbes filed protest opposing the homesteads of Custodio and Virtucio, claiming that his
approved application covered the whole area, including Lot Nos. 139 and 140, but was denied
and he was ordered to vacate subject land but he refused. In 1997, Virtucio then filed a
complaint for "Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Preliminary Injunction" before the
RTC. Alegarbes argued that the his possession of Lot Nos. 138, 139 and 140 had been open,
continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years and
had acquired such lots by acquisitive prescription.
The RTC, in 2001, ruled in favor of Virtucio and ordered Alegarbes to vacate Lot No. 140. The
CA, on the other hand, ruled that Alegarbes became ipso jure owner of Lot 140 and, therefore,
entitled to retain possession of it, by reason of acquisitive prescription.
III. Issue of the case:
1. W/N Alegarbes acquired ownership over the subject property by acquisitive prescription.
2. W/N the period of acquisitive prescription was interrupted in 1961 (or in 1954 when
Alegarbes filed the protest) when the Director of Lands rendered a decision giving due course
to his homestead application and that of Custodio, or when several extrajudicial demands were
also made upon Alegarbes demanding that he vacate said lot.
Page 1 of 3
the mere application for a patent, coupled with the fact of exclusive, open, continuous and
notorious possession for the required period, is sufficient to vest in the applicant the grant
applied for. It likewise cited the cases of Susi v. Razon and Pineda v. CA, where the Court ruled
that the possession of a parcel of agricultural land of the public domain for the prescribed
period of 30 years ipso jure converts the lot into private property.
In this case, Alegarbes had applied for homestead patent as early as 1949. He had been in
exclusive, open, continuous and notorious possession of Lot 140 for at least 30 years. By the time
the DENR issued its order of execution in 1989, Alegarbes had Lot 140 in his possession for
more than 30 years. Even more so when Virtucio filed the complaint before the RTC in 1997,
Alegarbes was already in possession of the subject property for forty-eight (48) years.
2. Civil interruption takes place with the service of judicial summons to the possessor. When no
action is filed, then there is no occasion to issue a judicial summons against the respondents.
The period of acquisitive prescription continues to run. Article 1155 of the New Civil Code
refers to the interruption of prescription of actions. Interruption of acquisitive prescription, on
the other hand, is found in Articles 1120-1125 of the same Code. Thus, Virtucios reliance on
Article 1155 for purposes of tolling the period of acquisitive prescription is misplaced. The only
kinds of interruption that effectively toll the period of acquisitive prescription are natural and
civil interruption.
VI. Dispositive Portion:
In view of the foregoing, the Court need not dwell on the complaint of Virtucio with regard to
the deletion of the award of attorney's fees in his favor. It is ludicrous for the CA to order
Alegarbes to pay attorney's fees, as a measure of damages, and costs, after finding him to have
acquired ownership over the property by acquisitive prescription.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Page 3 of 3