THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 167995. September 11, 2009.]

JULITA V. IMUAN, RODOLFO VELASQUEZ, ARTURO

VELASQUEZ, ARCADIO VELASQUEZ, BETTY VELASQUEZ,
ROSA V. PETUYA, FELICIDAD VELASQUEZ, RAYMUNDO
IMUAN, GERARDO IMUAN, JR., and ANDONG
VELASQUEZ, petitioners, vs. JUANITO CERENO, FEBELINDA G.
CERENO, GEMMA C. GABARDA, LEDESMA G. CERENO,
BLECERIA C. SULA and SALLY G. CERENO, respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA, J  : p

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to set aside the

Decision 1 dated August 24, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No.
69446, which reversed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41,
Dagupan City, in Civil Case No. 99-02910-D. Also assailed is the CA
Resolution 2 dated April 29, 2005 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. 
The facts are as follows:
During his lifetime, Pablo de Guzman (Pablo) contracted two marriages. His
first marriage was with Teodora Soriano (Teodora), with whom he had three children,
namely, Alfredo de Guzman (Alfredo), Cristita G. Velasquez (Cristita), and Inday G.
Soriano (Inday). His second marriage was in 1919 with Juana Velasquez (Juana), with
whom he also had three children, namely: Nena De Guzman (Nena), Teodora de
Guzman (Teodora), and Soledad G. Cereno (Soledad). All these children are now
dead.
Petitioners are Pablo's grandchildren by his first marriage, while respondent
Juanito Cereno (Juanito) is Soledad's husband and the other respondents are their
children.
On July 15, 1936, Pablo died intestate leaving two parcels of land, to wit: (1) a
parcel of coconut land located at Salaan Mangaldan, Pangasinan, containing an area
of nine hundred eighty-six (986) square meters, more or less, declared under Tax
Declaration No. 8032; and (2) a parcel of cornland located at (Inlambo) Palua,
Mangaldan, Pangasinan, containing an area of three thousand three hundred thirty-
four (3,334) square meters, more or less, declared under Tax Declaration No. 5155.  STcEaI

After Pablo's death in 1936, his second wife Juana and their children continued
to be in possession of the parcel of land located at Salaan, Mangaldan, Pangasinan
(the disputed property), where they lived since they were married in 1919.
On January 24, 1970, Juana executed a Deed of Absolute Sale 3 in favor of
respondents-spouses, Soledad, Juana and Pablo's daughter, and her husband Juanito
conveying the subject property. The deed was duly registered with the Register of
Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan.
On January 26, 1970, a Joint Affidavit 4 was executed by Alfredo de Guzman
and Teofilo Cendana attesting to the fact that Pablo ceded the property in favor of
Juana on the occasion of their marriage, but the document was lost.
Subsequently, Tax Declaration No. 23803 5 was issued in the names of
respondents-spouses who religiously paid the taxes due on the property. Since then
respondents-spouses enjoyed exclusive, open and uninterrupted possession of the
property. Later, the disputed property which originally consisted of one whole lot was
traversed by a barangay road dividing it into two (2) lots, namely, Lot 3533, with an
area of 690 square meters covered by Tax Declaration No. 21268; 6 and Lot 3559,
with an area of 560 square meters covered by Tax declaration No.
21269. 7 Respondents-spouses Cereno built their house on Lot 3559 and had planted
fruit-bearing trees on Lot 3533. Meanwhile, the parcel of cornland in Palua,
Mangaldan, Pangasinan has never been in possession of any of the parties since it
eroded and was submerged under water, eventually forming part of the riverbed. 
Sometime in January 1999, petitioners entered and took possession of Lot 3533
by building a small nipa hut thereon. Respondents then filed before the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) of Mangaldan, Pangasinan an ejectment case against petitioners.
In an Order 8 dated December 9, 1999, the MTC dismissed the case as both parties
prayed for its dismissal considering that petitioners had already left Lot 3533
immediately after the filing of the complaint.
On April 5, 1999, petitioners filed with the RTC of Dagupan City a Complaint
for annulment of document, reconveyance and damages against respondents alleging
that: (1) the estate of their grandfather Pablo has not yet been settled or partitioned
among his heirs nor had Pablo made disposition of his properties during his lifetime;
(2) it was only through their tolerance that Juana and his children constructed their
house on Lot 3559; (3) the sale of the disputed property made by Juana to
respondents-spouses Cereno and the issuance of tax declarations in the latter's names
are null and void. Petitioners prayed for the annulment of the deed of sale,
cancellation of Tax Declaration Nos. 21268 and 21269, the reconveyance of the
property to them and damages.
 In their Answer, respondents claimed that after the death of Pablo's first wife,
Pablo partitioned his property among his children and that spouses Nicomedes and
Cristita Velasquez acquired most of the properties as they were more financially
capable; that at the time Pablo married Juana, the properties he had were his exclusive
share in the partition; that of the two parcels of land Pablo had at that time, he donated
the subject property to Juana in a donation propter nuptias when they married; that
the deed of donation was lost during the Japanese occupation and such loss was
evidenced by the Joint Affidavit executed by Alfredo de Guzman and Teofilo
Cendana attesting to such donation; that Juana could validly convey the property to
the Spouses Cereno at the time of the sale because she was the owner; and that they
have been in public and uninterrupted possession of the disputed lot since its
acquisition and have been paying the realty taxes due thereon. As affirmative defense,
respondents contended that petitioners' rights over the property were already barred
by the statute of limitations. 
TDCcAE

After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision 9 dated November 10, 2000, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs
and against the defendants:
(a) Declaring as null and void the Deed of Absolute Sale; Tax
Declaration Nos. 21268 for Lot 3533 & 21269 for Lot 3559 in the names
of Juanito Cereno and Soledad de Guzman;
(b) Ordering the defendants (1) to reconvey the property in
question to the plaintiffs and to peacefully surrender the possession of
the premises to the plaintiffs; and (2) to pay plaintiffs litigation expenses
in the amount of P10,000.00.
SO ORDERED. 10
The RTC found that Juana and her children of the second nuptial built their
house on the disputed property by tolerance of Pablos' children of the first marriage;
that Juana alone sold the property to respondents Spouses Cereno and such sale was
not valid because she was not the owner of the property at the time she sold the same;
that the estate of Pablo has not been settled among the heirs since the property was
still in the name of Pablo at the time Juana sold the same; that respondents Spouses
Cereno's claim that the property was donated to Juana by Pablo by way of
donation propter nuptias was not supported by evidence; that Pablo could not have
donated the property to Juana because Pablo's children were the legal heirs of his first
wife, and have rights and interests over the property. The RTC found the Joint
Affidavit dated January 26, 1970 executed by Alfredo, Pablo's son by first marriage,
and Teofilo Cendana, a former Chief of Police of Mangaldan, Pangasinan, attesting
that the donation propter nuptias executed by Pablo in favor of Juana was lost during
the Japanese occupation was inconsequential, since it cannot substitute for the
donation which validity was highly questionable; that petitioners were able to prove
that the property was the conjugal property of Pablo and his first wife which has not
been divided between Pablo and his children of the first nuptial. 
On appeal, the CA rendered its assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of
which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby GRANT the appeal.
The assailed decision dated November 10, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 41, Dagupan City, in Civil Case No. 99-02910-D is
consequently REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs against the plaintiffs-
appellees.
SO ORDERED. 11
While the CA agreed with the findings of the RTC that there was no evidence
that Pablo undertook a partition of the properties of his first marriage before he
contracted his second marriage and that the Joint Affidavit dated January 26, 1970
could not be considered as conclusive proof of the transfer of the property by Pablo to
Juana, it was not a sufficient basis for Juana to validly transfer the property to
respondent Spouses Cereno, however, the CA gave probative value to the joint
affidavit as it was executed long before the present controversy arose. The CA found
that the joint affidavit was executed by Alfredo, one of Pablo's children by his first
marriage who was necessarily affected by the claimed donation propter nuptias and
who ought to know the facts attested to; that the affidavit was evidence of the basis of
Juana's own good faith belief that the property was hers to dispose of when she sold it
to respondents Spouses Cereno; that the same affidavit can also be the basis of
respondents Spouses Cereno's good faith belief that Juana, who had undisputably been
in possession of the disputed property at the time of the sale, was the owner and could
transfer the property to them by sale. 
cCSDaI

The CA also gave probative value to the deed of sale executed by Juana in
favor of respondents Spouses Cereno as it is still an evidence of the fact of transaction
between Juana and respondents Spouses Cereno for the sale of the disputed property.
The CA found that the deed of sale and the joint affidavit assumed great importance
on the issue of prescription.
The CA found that Juana possessed the property in the concept of an owner,
which is a sufficient basis for the belief that Juana was the owner of the property she
conveyed by sale and respondents Spouses Cereno had the good faith that acquisition
by prescription requires when they became the purchasers in the contract of sale with
her. The CA further stated that a sale, coupled with the delivery of the property sold,
is one of the recognized modes of acquiring ownership of real property and that
respondents Spouses Cereno immediately took possession of the property which
showed that respondent Spouses Cereno have just title to the property.
The CA further found that respondents Spouses Cereno are in peaceful
possession of the property for 29 years and, thus, have satisfied the ten-year period of
open, public and adverse possession in the concept of an owner that the law on
prescription requires. The CA added that petitioners are now barred by laches from
claiming ownership of the disputed property as they have been negligent in asserting
their rights. 
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated April
29, 2005.
Petitioners raise the following issues for our consideration:
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE
DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 41, DAGUPAN
CITY.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE
NATURE OF THE PROPERTY IN ISSUE WHEN IT RENDERED ITS
DECISION.
WHETHER LACHES/PRESCRIPTION BARRED HEREIN PETITIONERS
FROM CLAIMING THEIR RIGHTFUL SHARE IN THE PROPERTY IN
ISSUE. 12
Petitioners contend that since the CA and the RTC found that there was no
partition of the property and no valid donation propter nuptias was made by Pablo to
Juana, the rule on co-ownership among Pablo's heirs should govern the property; that
when Juana sold the property to respondents Cerenos, the rights of petitioners as co-
owners should not have been affected; that the CA's finding that the joint affidavit
attesting to the donation propter nuptias can be the basis of a belief in good faith that
Juana was the owner of the disputed property is erroneous, since Juana had
knowledge from the time she got married to Pablo that the property was acquired
during the latter's first marriage; that respondents Spouses Cereno could not be
considered in good faith since Soledad is the daughter of Juana with her marriage to
Pablo and could not be considered a third party to the dispute without knowledge of
the nature of the property; that being co-owners, neither prescription nor laches can be
used against them to divest them of their property rights. SIDTCa

In their Comment, respondents argue that Juana in her own right had acquired
the property by prescription; that the CA correctly considered respondents' 29 years of
actual and peaceful possession of the property aside from their purchase of the
property from Juana in finding them as the true owners.
Petitioners and respondents submitted their respective memoranda.
The petition has no merit.
We agree with the CA that respondents have acquired the disputed property by
acquisitive prescription.
Prescription is another mode of acquiring ownership and other real rights over
immovable property. 13 It is concerned with lapse of time in the manner and under
conditions laid down by law, namely, that the possession should be in the concept of
an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse. 14 Possession is open when it is
patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine. 15 It is continuous when
uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; 16 exclusive when the
adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of
it to his own use and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is
generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood. 17 The
party who asserts ownership by adverse possession must prove the presence of the
essential elements of acquisitive prescription. 18
Acquisitive prescription of real rights may be ordinary or
extraordinary. 19 Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith
and with just title for ten years. 20 In extraordinary prescription, ownership and other
real rights over immovable property are acquired through uninterrupted adverse
possession for thirty years without need of title or of good faith. 21
The good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that the person
from whom he received the thing was the owner thereof, and could transmit his
ownership. 22 For purposes of prescription, there is just title when the adverse
claimant came into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized
by law for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but the grantor was not the
owner or could not transmit any right. 23
Records show that as early as 1970, when the property was sold by Juana to
respondents Spouses Cereno, the latter immediately took possession of the property.
Since then, respondents possessed the property continuously, openly, peacefully, in
the concept of an owner, exclusively and in good faith with just title, to the exclusion
of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest until the filing of the complaint in
1999 which is the subject of this present petition. HacADE

Notably, the property was traversed by a barangay road, thus, it was divided

into two lots. The house of respondents is located on the eastern part of the road,
while the lot on the western part of the road was planted to fruit-bearing trees by
respondents. 24 It was admitted by petitioners that they saw the house of respondents
constructed on the lot and yet never questioned the same. 25 It was also established
that respondents are the ones gathering the fruits of the land and enjoying the
same 26 to the exclusion of petitioners and yet the latter never prevented them from
doing so. In fact, while petitioners learned of the sale of the property by Juana to the
Spouses Cereno in 1980, they never took any action to protect whatever rights they
have over the property nor raised any objection on respondents' possession of the
property. Petitioners' inaction is aggravated by the fact that petitioners just live a mere
100 meters away from the property. 27
Moreover, immediately after the sale of the property to the Spouses Cereno,
they declared the property in their names for taxation purposes 28 and since then
religiously paid the taxes 29 due on the property. Petitioners admitted that they knew
that the Spouses Cerenos are the ones paying the taxes; 30 yet, they never challenged
the same for a long period of time which clearly establishes respondents' claim as
owners of the property. Jurisprudence is clear that although tax declarations or realty
tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they
are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind
would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive
possession. 31 They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the
property. 32 As is well known, the payment of taxes, coupled with actual possession of
the land covered by the tax declaration, strongly supports a claim of ownership. 33
Respondent Juanito also exercised dominion over the property by mortgaging
the same to Manaoag Rural Bank in 1994 34 and the mortgage was cancelled only in
January 1999. 35
While there is a question regarding the alleged donation propter nuptias at the
time Juana executed the deed of sale in favor of the Spouses Cereno in 1970,
however, the requirement of just title and good faith are still satisfied in this case. As
the CA said:
. . . [T]he joint affidavit that the defendants-appellants presented,
attesting to the donation propter nuptias of the disputed property by Pablo to
Juana, can be the basis of the belief in good faith that Juana was the owner of
the disputed property. Related to this, it is undisputed that Pablo and Juana had
lived in the disputed property from the time of their marriage in 1919, and Juana
continued to live and to possess this property in the concept of an owner from
the time of Pablo's death in 1936 up to the time she sold it to spouses Cereno in
1970. These circumstances, in our view, are sufficient bases for the belief that
Juana was the owner of the property she conveyed by sale, and leave us
convinced that the spouses Cereno had the "good faith" that acquisition by
prescription requires when they became the purchasers in the contract of sale
with Juana. 36 
DSEaHT

Notably, one of the affiants in the joint affidavit which was executed in 1970
was Alfredo, Pablo's son by his first marriage, where he attested that the property was
given by his father Pablo to Juana by donation propter nuptias. Not one among
Alfredo's children had ever come out to assail the validity of the affidavit executed by
their father. In fact, not one of Alfredo's heirs joined petitioners in this
case. 37 Moreover, not one among the children of the first marriage when they were
still alive ever made a claim on their successional rights over the property by asking
for its partition. Such joint affidavit could constitute a legal basis for Juana's adverse
and exclusive character of the possession of the property 38 and would show the
Spouses Cereno's good faith belief that Juana was the owner of the property. Thus,
when petitioners filed the instant case, more than 29 years had already elapsed, thus,
the ten-year period for acquisitive prescription has already been satisfied.
We likewise agree with the CA when it found that petitioners are guilty of
laches that would bar them from belatedly asserting their claim.
 Laches is defined as the failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert
it has either abandoned or declined to assert it. This equitable defense is based upon
grounds of public policy, which requires the discouragement of stale claims for the
peace of society. 39
Juana sold the property to the Spouses Cereno in 1970 and since then have
possessed the property peacefully and publicly without any opposition from
petitioners. While petitioners claim that they knew about the sale only in 1980 yet
they did not take any action to recover the same and waited until 1999 to file a suit
without offering any excuse for such delay. Records do not show any justifiable
reason for petitioners' inaction for a long time in asserting whatever rights they have
over the property given the publicity of respondents' conduct as owners of the
property.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 24, 2004
and the Resolution dated April 29, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
69446 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
|||  (Imuan v. Cereno, G.R. No. 167995, [September 11, 2009], 615 PHIL 489-503)

Imuan vs. Cereno, G.R. No. 167995, Sept. 11, 2009

"prescription"

Facts:
Pablo contracted two marriages and all his children on both are already dead. The petitioners
in the case are his grandchildren while the respondent is the husband of his daughter from his
second marriage. Juana, Pablo’s second wife, together with her children continued to be in
possession of the parcel of land owned by Pablo after his death. A joint affidavit was executed
attesting that Pablo ceded the property in favor of Juana in the occasion of their marriage but
the document was lost. Juana sold said parcel of land to the respondent which was registered in
the register of deeds. The land area sold to respondents was divided by a barangay road. They
built a house on one side and planted fruit-bearing trees on the other side. It is on the latter’s
side where the petitioners took possession and built a nipa hut thereon. An ejectment case was
filed by the respondents against petitioners but was later dismissed when the petitioners left
the area.
Petitioners now brought an action for reconveyance, damages, and annulment of deed of sale
by Juana to the respondents. They contend that it was through their tolerance that Juana and
her children constructed their house on the lot in dispute, that Pablo have not partitioned
among his heirs his property and the sale made by Juana to respondents are null and void.
Respondents invoke the ground that when Pablo married Juana the property was his exclusive
property and donated such through propter nuptias when they married. Thus Juana, being the
owner of said lot, validly made the sale to respondents who immediately took possession over
the land and paid its realty tax. MTC ruled in favor of the petitioners however upon appeal CA
ruled in favor of the respondents as it held that the respondents are in peaceful possession of
said lot for 29 years which suffice to meet the requirement of 10-year period of open, public,
and adverse possession in the concept of owner that the law on prescription requires. It ruled
that petitioners are barred by latches from claiming ownership of the disputed property.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are barred by latches and prescription in claiming their
share of the property?

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents have acquired the disputed property by
acquisitive prescription. Prescription is another mode of acquiring ownership and other real
rights over immovable property and is concerned with a lapse of time laid down by law where
possession should be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted, and adverse.
Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, and notorious. It is continuous when
uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the adverse
possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use
and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by
the public or the people in the neighborhood. The party who asserts ownership by adverse
possession must prove the presence of the essential elements of acquisitive prescription.
Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith and a just title in 10 years
while extraordinary acquisitive prescription involves uninterrupted adverse possession for 30
years without the need for good title and good faith.

Respondents immediately took possession of the property after buying it and diligently paid
its realty tax. Even if the petitioners saw respondents built a house thereon and planted fruit-
bearing trees, they did not raise objection on the respondent’s possession. Their inaction
further made them guilty of latches since they live merely 100 meters away from the property
to know of the respondent’s possession of said land. They only filed an action
for reconveyance 29 years after the respondent’s peaceful possession over the property, the
10-year prescription period for ordinary acquisitive prescription has already lapsed. The SC
affirmed the CA decision declaring the respondents as the rightful owner of the land in dispute.