VIRTUCIO v. ALEGARBES, G.R. No. 187451, August 29, 2012

-

 

FACTS 

The story begins in 1949 when Jose Alegarbes applied for a homestead over a 24-hectare tract of land in Bañas, Lantawan, Basilan. His application was approved in 1952. But due to a public land subdivision conducted in 1955, the land was split into Lot Nos. 138, 139, and 140. Lot 138 was retained by Alegarbes, while Lot 139 was allocated to Ulpiano Custodio and Lot 140 to Jesus Virtucio, both of whom filed their own homestead applications.

Alegarbes, asserting that his approved application covered the entire area including Lots 139 and 140, opposed the applications of Custodio and Virtucio. But the Director of Lands, in a decision dated October 30, 1961, denied Alegarbes' protest and amended his application to exclude Lots 139 and 140, giving due course to the applications of Custodio and Virtucio.

Unrelenting, Alegarbes appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who dismissed his appeal in 1967. His persistence led him to the Office of the President (OP), which also affirmed the prior rulings in 1974. Even after his motion for reconsideration was denied, Alegarbes continued to possess Lot 140.

On May 11, 1989, the Lands Management Bureau of the DENR issued an order of execution, commanding Alegarbes to vacate Lot 140. He refused. It wasn’t until September 26, 1997, that Virtucio filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Preliminary Injunction before the RTC of Basilan.

In his defense, Alegarbes claimed the decision of the Bureau of Lands was void ab initio, arguing that it was issued without jurisdiction. He claimed ownership via acquisitive prescription, alleging more than 30 years of open, continuous, and peaceful possession, starting in the 1950s, with permanent improvements and occupation by his family, including his late brother.

RTC DECISION

The Regional Trial Court of Basilan, Branch 1, in its February 19, 2001 Decision, ruled in favor of Virtucio, stating that he was entitled to possession and ownership based on the finality of the administrative rulings.

It ordered:

  1. Alegarbes to vacate Lot 140 and surrender possession to Virtucio.

  2. Payment of ₱15,000 as attorney’s fees and ₱10,000 as litigation expenses.

  3. Payment of ₱500 as cost of suit.

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION

On February 25, 2009, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. It found that Alegarbes had acquired ownership of Lot 140 by acquisitive prescription. The CA emphasized that:

  • The administrative rulings were not determinative of the issue of ownership by adverse possession.

  • Alegarbes' open, continuous, exclusive possession for over 30 years over alienable public land segregated the land ipso jure from the public domain.

  • Decisions by administrative agencies did not interrupt acquisitive prescription since only judicial summons can do so under the Civil Code.

The CA deleted the awards for attorney’s fees and litigation costs, recognizing Alegarbes' rightful possession and ownership of Lot 140.

SUPREME COURT DECISION

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision and dismissed Virtucio’s petition, declaring:

  • The main issue was factual, i.e., whether Alegarbes acquired ownership via acquisitive prescription. Although factual questions are generally not reviewable under Rule 45, the case was reviewable because of conflicting findings between the RTC and CA.

  • The Court clarified that Article 1155 on interruption of extinctive prescription (referring to rights and actions) does not apply to acquisitive prescription, which is governed by Articles 1120–1125 of the Civil Code.

  • Civil interruption, the only one that tolls acquisitive prescription, occurs through judicial summons. Mere administrative protests or orders of execution, even if final, do not interrupt the running of time.

  • As of 1989 (when DENR issued the order of execution), Alegarbes had possessed the land for over 30 years. By 1997, when Virtucio filed the RTC case, Alegarbes had been in possession for 48 years. The Court found this sufficient to acquire ownership via extraordinary acquisitive prescription, requiring 30 years of adverse possession even without title or good faith.

  • The RTC erred in relying solely on administrative decisions. The CA correctly ruled that by the time the land was still technically public, Alegarbes’ possession had already transformed it into private property under settled jurisprudence.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

  • Virtucio argued:

    • His homestead application was valid and final.

    • The administrative rulings, especially from the OP and DENR, must be honored.

    • Alegarbes’ protest in 1954 and the administrative actions interrupted the prescription period.

    • The earlier CA ruling in Custodio v. Alegarbes (concerning Lot 139) should be applied here.

  • Alegarbes countered:

    • He had possessed Lot 140 openly, continuously, exclusively, and adversely for over 30 years.

    • Administrative protests do not interrupt acquisitive prescription—only judicial actions do.

    • He and his family made permanent improvements and have lived on the land since the 1950s.

    • No patent was issued to either party; thus, the land remained in the State’s name until prescription.

DOCTRINE / PRINCIPLES

  1. Acquisitive Prescription (Civil Code Articles 1106, 1120–1125):

    • Extraordinary acquisitive prescription requires 30 years of uninterrupted, adverse possession without title or good faith.

    • Only judicial summons interrupts prescription—not administrative protests or orders.

  2. Public Land Becoming Private:

    • Alienable public land, once held in adverse possession for the statutory period, is ipso jure segregated from the public domain and becomes private property.

  3. Final Administrative Decisions Do Not Bar Prescription:

    • Even final decisions approving another's homestead do not negate an adverse possessor’s right to claim ownership by prescription.

  4. CA Decisions Not Binding Precedent:

    • Under the doctrine of stare decisis, only Supreme Court rulings have precedential value. CA decisions do not bind the High Court in other cases.

DISPOSITION

The petition was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed that Jose Alegarbes acquired Lot 140 by extraordinary acquisitive prescription and is entitled to retain its possession and ownership.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In this world cruel world

-
In this world that the one who has money has the power, the man who has money has the influence, has the right over poor people. The person who has money has right to mock other people. In this world that man that has money can own a huge number of lot, huge number of house who they can investment. Slavery is still here, we are in 20th century, but power over man is still here, I am even talking about racism, it more than that because slavery is still here. Money can talk, money can buy every material thing in this world, and if you a poor person with no dignity, you can sell yourself bought by called money. If you do not own a house, you will call yourself a poor, and you are a poor dreaming to be rich someday, you have to walk through every obstacles you will face, and that is not going to be easy, because this is a cruel world. People with power know that you are striving to get out of mud, they know it, and not every rich person willing to help you with it, some of them w...
Read more

I found a new house

-
July, 6, 2020 Today, After a week of finding a new house to rent, finally I found it, several people and checked their house to rent, and finally I hope that this one is that the Lord guided me here, I pay 8500 pesos for my deposit and advances, there will be some adjustment due to price of bill that I will pay monthly, but I chose this because I felt unsecured in my previous place, that place is price wise, because it only cost 2,200 pesos unlike this current house I am staying right now 4,250 a month exclusive electric and water bill to estimate it maybe I a lot 5 thousand pesos a month, that would be a great cut to my salary and savings, just to add up this one I found is not actually expensive it is just the previous house is just too cheap in this city, it is just there is an history of suicide and there is weird guys next to my room, so I think I should be thankful I somehow feel safe right now even I am still adjusting because I have another housemate but for my first impres...
Read more

I told myself

-
June, 24, 2020 Still working on it, but I need to be consistent, Woah! just wrote my father's day letter day's ago, I was amazed to have 22 views, what I felt is a little happy because someone read my blog, supposedly it was for the purpose of practicing and memory of me writing and of course memory of my father, I wrote what I feel, I actually don't proof read my blog because I write it without thinking too much about grammar, but then when I saw that the views are increasing, I 've said I was insecure that maybe the reader will find many mistake in grammar, so I proof read it and did my best to reconstruct the paragraphs, since I was not fluent in english and likewise how I write stories and sentences, I can't sleep that night because I was also thinking how the reader will see me as person, but anyway, it is my life, and I learn that part of life is learning to accept what other people gonna say to you and face it without fear, because it is part of your progre...
Read more