Danganon v. Vda. De Tanquion

 

Danganon v. Vda. De Tanquion

G.R. No. 233076

March 22, 2023

 

FACTS:

                Esteban Tanquion and his wife, Leoncia Lapara donated a lot in favor of Barangay Poblacion, Cabanglasan, Bukidnon. In the Deed of Donation, they placed a condition that as long as the donors are alive, the barangay cannot sell, alienate, exchange, mortgage or in any manner encumber the property without the prior knowledge and written consent of the donors. However, later on, the donation was revoked, allegedly because the barangay sold the property despite the prohibition in the deed. Leoncia consequently demanded Prociso Danganon and the other petitioners, who were occupying the property at the time, to vacate the property, but her demands were unheeded, so she filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Danganon and the others who were occupying the property. The RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription, stating that according to Art. 1144 of the Civil Code, Leoncia had 10 years from the execution of the deed to file for recovery of possession, and as the period already lapsed, she couldn’t bring the action anymore. The CA reversed the ruling of the RTC, stating that by virtue of the fact that the property was covered by the Torrens system, Leoncia’s title is rendered imprescriptible and the property couldn’t be acquired through prescription by adverse possession.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not Danganon and the other petitioners who were occupying the property acquired ownership of the lot through acquisitive prescription.

                Whether or not the action to recover possession has prescribed.

 

HELD:

                No. Prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership through the lapse of time and under certain conditions. Under Art. 1106 of the Civil Code, in relation to Art. 712, acquisitive prescription may either be ordinary (possession of the thing in good faith for a period of 10 years) or extraordinary acquisitive prescription (uninterrupted adverse possession of 30 years, without need of title or of good faith). In this case, Leoncia’s title over the property is covered by the Torrens system, and as such, the subject land is imprescriptible and cannot be the subject of acquisitive prescription. And even assuming that Danganon and the others have been occupying the property since 1960, their possession is not in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted, and adverse, as they all admitted that the land was owned by the barangay, and that they were only occupying the property by the tolerance of the barangay. Thus, Danganon and the others cannot acquire ownership of the property through acquisitive prescription.

                No. When an action for the recovery of possession is anchored on a title of ownership, the action is imprescriptible. In this case, Leoncia brought the action on the basis of her right as the holder of a certificate of title under the Torrens system, and thus her right to recover possession of her property is imprescriptible.