Credit Case Digest

1.

CATHOLIC VICAR APOSTOLIC VS. CA G.R. NO. 80294-95 September 21, 1988/. G!"#!$#%

&!#t'(  The whole controversy started when the herein petit petition ioner er fled fled an applic applicati ation on or regis registra tratio tion n o  land lands s 1, 2, 3 and and 4 in La Trini rinida dad, d, Beng Bengue uett on Septemer !, 1"#2$  The heirs o %uan &alde' and the heirs o (gmidio )cta )ctavi vian ano o fled fled an oppo opposi sitio tion n on lots lots 2 and and 3, respectively$ )n *ovemer 1+, 1"#!, the land registration court confrmed the registrale title o the petitioner$ )n appeal y the private respondent respondent heirs, the ourt o -ppeal -ppeals s reve reverse rsed d the decisi decision on and cancel cancelled led &icar.s title or lots 2 and 3$  The heirs fled a motion or reconsideration, reconsideration, praying that that the lots lots e order ordered ed regis register tered ed under under their their names$ The ourt o -ppeals denied the motion or lac/ lac/ o su0cie su0cient nt merit merit$$ Both Both partie parties s then then came came eore the Supreme ourt, however, the S, in a minute resolution, denied oth petitions$ The heirs then fled cases or the recovery and possession o  the lots$ uring uring trial, trial, &icar &icar conten contende ded d that that it has een in posse ssessio sion o the the su suect ect lots ots or or +! years ars continuo continuously usly and peaceull peaceully y and has constructe constructed d permanent structures thereon$ )n the other other hand, hand, respo responde ndents nts argue argue that that the petitioner is arred rom setting up the deense o  ownership or long and continuous possession y the prior udgment o the ourt o -ppeals under the principle o res udicata$ •

•

•

•

•

•

I'')e'( 1$ ether ether &icar had een een in possession possession o the suect suect lots merely as aileeo aileeorro rrower wer in commodatu commodatum, m, a gratuitous loan or use$ 2$ het hethe herr the the case case viol violat ated ed the the prin princi cipl ple e o res  udicata$ 3$ ho is entitled entitled to the possess possession ion and ownershi ownership p o  the land5 He*+( 1$ 6riva 6rivate te respo respond ndent ents s we were re ale to prove prove that their predec predecesso essors7 rs7 house house was orrowed orrowed y petitione petitionerr &icar icar ate aterr the the chur church ch and and the the conv conven entt were ere destroyed$ destroyed$ They never as/ed or the return o the house house,, ut ut when when they they allowe allowed d its ree ree use, use, they they ecame ailors in commodatum and the petitioner the ailee$ The ailees7 ailure ailure to return the the suect matter o commodatum to the ailor did not mean adverse possession on the part o the orrower$ The ailee held in trust the property suect matter o  commodatum$ The adverse adverse claim o petitioner petitioner came only in 1"!1 when it declared the lots or ta8ation purposes purposes$$ The action action o petitione petitionerr &icar y such such adverse claim could not ripen into title y way o  ordin ordinary ary ac9uis ac9uisiti itive ve pres prescri cripti ption on ecau ecause se o the asence o ust title$ 2$ 6etiti tition one er was in posse osses ssion sion as orr orrower in commodatum up to 1"!1, when it repudiated the trust trust y declar declaring ing the propert properties ies in its name name or ta8ati ta8ation on purpose purposes$ s$ hen hen petiti petitione onerr applie applied d or registration o Lots 2 and 3 in 1"#2, it had een in posse possessi ssion on in concep conceptt o owner owner only only or eleve eleven n years$ years$ )rdinary )rdinary ac9uisit ac9uisitive ive prescrip prescription tion re9uire re9uires s possession or ten years, ut always with ust title$ (8traord (8traordinary inary ac9uisiti ac9uisitive ve prescrip prescription tion re9uire re9uires s 3: years$ )n the aove fndings o acts supported y evidence evidence and evaluated evaluated y the ourt o -ppeals, -ppeals, a0rmed y this ourt, e see no error in

respondent appellate court7s ruling that said fndings are res udicata etween the parties$ They can no longer e altered y presentation o evidence ecause those issues were resolved with fnality a long time ago$ To ignore the principle o res udicata would e to open the door to endless litigations y continuous determination o issues without end$ 3$ 6ursuant to the said decision in -;$