Abalos vs Heirs of Torio the absolute and exclusive owners of the land in question;

that petitioners and their predecessors had been in

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking possession of the subject lot since time immemorial up to
to set aside the Decision1 dated June 30, 2006 and the present; they have paid real property taxes and
Resolution2 dated November 13, 2006 by the Court of introduced improvements thereon.6
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 91887. The assailed Decision
reversed and set aside the Decision3 dated June 14, 2005 of After the issues were joined, trial ensued.
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan,
Branch 69, while the questioned Resolution denied On December 10, 2003, the MTC issued a Decision, the
petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration[s], the
follows: Court adjudged the case in favor of the plaintiffs and against
the defendants and defendants-intervenors are ordered to
On July 24, 1996, herein respondents filed a Complaint for turn over the land in question to the plaintiffs (Lot Nos. 869
Recovery of Possession and Damages with the Municipal and 870, Cad. 467-D. Binmaley Cadastre located in Brgy. San
Trial Court (MTC) of Binmaley, Pangasinan against Jaime Isidro Norte, Binmaley, Pangasinan with an area of 2,950 sq.
Abalos (Jaime) and the spouses Felix and Consuelo Salazar. m., more or less, bounded and described in paragraph 3 of
Respondents contended that: they are the children and the Complaint[)]; ordering the defendants and defendants-
heirs of one Vicente Torio (Vicente) who died intestate on intervenors to remove their respective houses standing on
September 11, 1973; at the time of the death of Vicente, he the land in dispute; further ordering the defendants and
left behind a parcel of land measuring 2,950 square meters, defendants-intervenors, either singly or jointly to pay the
more or less, which is located at San Isidro Norte, Binmaley, plaintiffs land rent in the amount of ₱12,000.00 per year to
Pangasinan; during the lifetime of Vicente and through his be reckoned starting the year 1996 until defendants and
tolerance, Jaime and the Spouses Salazar were allowed to defendants-intervenors will finally vacate the premises;
stay and build their respective houses on the subject parcel furthermore, defendants and defendants-intervenors are
of land; even after the death of Vicente, herein respondents also ordered to pay, either singly or jointly, the amount of
allowed Jaime and the Spouses Salazar to remain on the ₱10,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees and costs of
disputed lot; however, in 1985, respondents asked Jaime suit.
and the Spouses Salazar to vacate the subject lot, but they
refused to heed the demand of respondents forcing SO ORDERED.7
respondents to file the complaint.4
Jaime and the Spouses Salazar appealed the Decision of the
Jaime and the Spouses Salazar filed their Answer with MTC with the RTC of Lingayen, Pangasinan.8 Herein
Counterclaim, denying the material allegations in the petitioners, who were intervenors, did not file an appeal.
Complaint and asserting in their Special and Affirmative
Defenses that: respondents' cause of action is barred by In its Decision dated June 14, 2005, the RTC ruled in favor of
acquisitive prescription; the court a quo has no jurisdiction Jaime and the Spouses Salazar, holding that they have
over the nature of the action and the persons of the acquired the subject property through prescription.
defendants; the absolute and exclusive owners and Accordingly, the RTC dismissed herein respondents'
possessors of the disputed lot are the deceased complaint.
predecessors of defendants; defendants and their
predecessors-in-interest had been in actual, continuous and Aggrieved, herein respondents filed a petition for review
peaceful possession of the subject lot as owners since time with the CA assailing the Decision of the RTC.
immemorial; defendants are faithfully and religiously paying
real property taxes on the disputed lot as evidenced by Real On June 30, 2006, the CA promulgated its questioned
Property Tax Receipts; they have continuously introduced Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads, thus:
improvements on the said land, such as houses, trees and
other kinds of ornamental plants which are in existence up
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
to the time of the filing of their Answer.5
June 14, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69,
Lingayen, Pangasinan is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In
On the same date as the filing of defendants' Answer with its stead, a new one is entered reinstating the Decision dated
Counterclaim, herein petitioners filed their Answer in December 10, 2003 of the Municipal Trial Court of Binmaley,
Intervention with Counterclaim. Like the defendants, herein Pangasinan.
petitioners claimed that their predecessors-in-interest were
SO ORDERED.9 (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises, or conjectures;
Jaime and the Spouses Salazar filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in its (b) When the inference made is manifestly
Resolution dated November 13, 2006. mistaken, absurd, or impossible;

Hence, the instant petition based on a sole assignment of (c) When there is grave abuse of discretion;
error, to wit:
(d) When the judgment is based on a
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT misapprehension of facts;
THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE NOW THE ABSOLUTE AND
EXCLUSIVE OWNERS OF THE LAND IN QUESTION BY VIRTUE (e) When the findings of facts are conflicting;
OF ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION.10
(f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond
The main issue raised by petitioners is whether they and the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to
their predecessors-in-interest possessed the disputed lot in the admissions of both the appellant and the
the concept of an owner, or whether their possession is by appellee;
mere tolerance of respondents and their predecessors-in-
interest. Corollarily, petitioners claim that the due execution (g) When the CA’s findings are contrary to those by
and authenticity of the deed of sale upon which the trial court;
respondents' predecessors-in-interest derived their
ownership were not proven during trial. (h) When the findings are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are
The petition lacks merit. based;

Preliminarily, the Court agrees with the observation of (i) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as
respondents that some of the petitioners in the instant in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not
petition were the intervenors11 when the case was filed with disputed by the respondent;
the MTC. Records would show that they did not appeal the
Decision of the MTC.12 The settled rule is that failure to (j) When the findings of fact are premised on the
perfect an appeal renders the judgment final and supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by
executory.13 Hence, insofar as the intervenors in the MTC the evidence on record; or
are concerned, the judgment of the MTC had already
become final and executory. (k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if
It also bears to point out that the main issue raised in the properly considered, would justify a different
instant petition, which is the character or nature of conclusion.15
petitioners' possession of the subject parcel of land, is
factual in nature. In the present case, the findings of fact of the MTC and the
CA are in conflict with those of the RTC.
Settled is the rule that questions of fact are not reviewable
in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the After a review of the records, however, the Court finds that
Rules of Court.14 Section 1 of Rule 45 states that petitions for the petition must fail as it finds no error in the findings of
review on certiorari "shall raise only questions of law which fact and conclusions of law of the CA and the MTC.
must be distinctly set forth."
Petitioners claim that they have acquired ownership over
Doubtless, the issue of whether petitioners possess the the disputed lot through ordinary acquisitive prescription.
subject property as owners, or whether they occupy the
same by mere tolerance of respondents, is a question of
Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real rights
fact. Thus, it is not reviewable.
may be ordinary or extraordinary.16 Ordinary acquisitive
prescription requires possession in good faith and with just
Nonetheless, the Court has, at times, allowed exceptions title for ten (10) years.17 Without good faith and just title,
from the abovementioned restriction. Among the acquisitive prescription can only be extraordinary in
recognized exceptions are the following:
character which requires uninterrupted adverse possession must be clear, complete and conclusive in order to establish
for thirty (30) years.18 the prescription.25 In the present case, the Court finds no
error on the part of the CA in holding that petitioners failed
Possession "in good faith" consists in the reasonable belief to present competent evidence to prove their alleged good
that the person from whom the thing is received has been faith in neither possessing the subject lot nor their adverse
the owner thereof, and could transmit his claim thereon. Instead, the records would show that
ownership.19 There is "just title" when the adverse claimant petitioners' possession was by mere tolerance of
came into possession of the property through one of the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest. 1avvphi1

modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or

other real rights, but the grantor was not the owner or could Finally, as to the issue of whether the due execution and
not transmit any right.20 authenticity of the deed of sale upon which respondents
anchor their ownership were not proven, the Court notes
In the instant case, it is clear that during their possession of that petitioners did not raise this matter in their Answer as
the property in question, petitioners acknowledged well as in their Pre-Trial Brief. It was only in their Comment
ownership thereof by the immediate predecessor-in- to respondents' Petition for Review filed with the CA that
interest of respondents. This is clearly shown by the Tax they raised this issue. Settled is the rule that points of law,
Declaration in the name of Jaime for the year 1984 wherein theories, issues, and arguments not adequately brought to
it contains a statement admitting that Jaime's house was the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily
built on the land of Vicente, respondents' immediate will not be, considered by a reviewing court.26 They cannot
predecessor-in-interest.21 Petitioners never disputed such be raised for the first time on appeal. To allow this would be
an acknowledgment. Thus, having knowledge that they nor offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due
their predecessors-in-interest are not the owners of the process.27
disputed lot, petitioners' possession could not be deemed as
possession in good faith as to enable them to acquire the Even granting that the issue of due execution and
subject land by ordinary prescription. In this respect, the authenticity was properly raised, the Court finds no cogent
Court agrees with the CA that petitioners' possession of the reason to depart from the findings of the CA, to wit:
lot in question was by mere tolerance of respondents and
their predecessors-in-interest. Acts of possessory character Based on the foregoing, respondents [Jaime Abalos and the
executed due to license or by mere tolerance of the owner Spouses Felix and Consuelo Salazar] have not inherited the
are inadequate for purposes of acquisitive disputed land because the same was shown to have already
prescription.22 Possession, to constitute the foundation of a been validly sold to Marcos Torio, who, thereupon, assigned
prescriptive right, must be en concepto de dueño, or, to use the same to his son Vicente, the father of petitioners [herein
the common law equivalent of the term, that possession respondents]. A valid sale was amply established and the
should be adverse, if not, such possessory acts, no matter said validity subsists because the deed evidencing the same
how long, do not start the running of the period of was duly notarized.
prescription.23
There is no doubt that the deed of sale was duly
Moreover, the CA correctly held that even if the character of acknowledged before a notary public. As a notarized
petitioners' possession of the subject property had become document, it has in its favor the presumption of regularity
adverse, as evidenced by their declaration of the same for and it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with
tax purposes under the names of their predecessors-in- respect to its due execution. It is admissible in evidence
interest, their possession still falls short of the required without further proof of its authenticity and is entitled to full
period of thirty (30) years in cases of extraordinary faith and credit upon its face.28
acquisitive prescription. Records show that the earliest Tax
Declaration in the name of petitioners was in 1974. Indeed, settled is the rule in our jurisdiction that a notarized
Reckoned from such date, the thirty-year period was document has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and
completed in 2004. However, herein respondents' to overcome the same, there must be evidence that is clear,
complaint was filed in 1996, effectively interrupting convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise,
petitioners' possession upon service of summons on the document should be upheld.29 In the instant case,
them.24 Thus, petitioners’ possession also did not ripen into petitioners' bare denials will not suffice to overcome the
ownership, because they failed to meet the required presumption of regularity of the assailed deed of sale.
statutory period of extraordinary prescription.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision
This Court has held that the evidence relative to the and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
possession upon which the alleged prescription is based, 91887 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.