OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

PRESCRIPTION SUBSTANTIAL number of people must know that it

is your property.
Article 1106. By prescription, one acquires Example: It is surrounded by other islands. When
ownership and other real rights through the lapse of people see that you have your house and resort over
time in the manner and under the condition laid that island, they'll think that it is yours. That island
down by the law. is already occupied by that person. They recognize it
In the same way, rights and actions are lost by because you make public the fact that you are
prescription. exercising your rights as the owner of that island.

*Article 1106 defines prescription. 3. Peaceful - there must be an absence of force,

So by prescription, a person can become an owner violence, and intimidation. Otherwise, it will not be
of a thing and exercise real rights belonging to an recognized as possession.
owner with respect to that particular thing. Example: On that deserted island there was
2nd paragraph is a type of prescription that will apparently a couple living there, and to occupy the
cause a person to lose ownership over that thing. island you kill them. So that will prevent
prescriptions from setting in. Because it is contrary
Acquisitive and Extinctive Prescription to the intention of the law, to promote violence for
Acquisitive means you gain and Extinctive means the the purpose of obtaining property.
right is lost.
4. Uninterrupted - this is not a layman concept but
Conditions laid down by the law in acquiring: rather a technical concept. It must not have been
1. In the concept of an owner – he/she is interrupted in the sense that the person acquiring
possessing the thing as though he was the owner ownership stayed as an owner without living. It is
and he was exercising rights with respect to that uninterrupted in a sense that no one else tries to
thing that only an owner can do. claim and exercise ownership over the property or
For example, you find a deserted island but around even if someone else did try that claim was found to
it there are other islands as well. So what you do is be without basis.
you build a resort and house on that island and you
say that it is yours. 5. Adverse - the claimant must clearly, definitely,
*That is the concept of an owner because why and unequivocally(without a doubt very certain)
would you build a resort on an island if you do not notify the owner of his intention to advert an
intend to be an owner. exclusive ownership in himself. He declares to the
world that the thing is his and no one elses and that
he claims ownership over it.
2. Public - everyone or at least plenty of people Example: In the same deserted island suppose you
should be aware of your status as the owner of that really buy it beforehand and you find out that
thing. Not everyone has to know but a someone has occupied that island. You eject that

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 1

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

person from the island by claiming it is yours by filing That's manifested in the difference between
a case, saying that this is my title to the property and ordinary and extraordinary prescriptions. Where
I bought this property. You declare against another bad faith possession requires a longer period before
that the particular island is owned by you. ownership over the thing can be given to you.

These are the conditions for prescriptions to 2. Extinctive Prescription - a period that must lapse
become a mode of acquiring or losing ownership. in order for you to lose your right to do something.
REMEMBER THESE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THEY Like bringing a suit to a court or claiming ownership
ARE VERY IMPORTANT. over a certain property.

Classification of Prescription: LACHES - this concept is always juxtaposed with

- As to whether rights are acquired or lost. prescription because both of them lose the right.
- As to the object or subject matter
Unreasonable delay in the bringing of a cause of
1. Acquisitive prescription ( Prescription of action before the courts of justice.
ownership and other real rights)
* Ordinary Prescription - Article 1117. Ordinary "is a failure or neglect. for an unreasonable and
acquisitive prescription requires: unexplained length of time, to do that which, by
a. possession; exercising due diligence, could or should have been
b. things or rights; done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a
c. in good faith; right within a reasonable time, warranting a
d. with just title; presumption that the party entitled thereto either
e. for the time fixed by law. has abandoned it or declined to assert it. However,
courts will not be bound by structures of the statute
*Extraordinary Prescription - All requirements for of limitations or laches when manifest wrong or
ordinary prescription except good faith and just injuries would result thereby."
title (8 years for movables, 30 years for immovables)
*In short, you know that you have a right but you
Whether rights are acquired or lost: choose not to fight for that right. It could be for any
When one possesses a property it could be in good reason. It could be because you knew then you
faith or in bad faith. eventually forgot or you were waiting for the right
Good faith - you sincerely believe that you own that time because you are trying to reconcile with the
property. parties. You wanted to see first if there's another
Bad Faith - you know someone else owns that way to settle things outside of court.
property but you were insisting that it is yours.

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 2

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

NOTE: the delay should be unreasonable without

justification. 4. Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event
relief is accorded to the complainant or the suit is
For example, you were tricked or deceived into not held barred.
delaying the filing of an action. Then that is - what would be the effect if the complainant is
unreasonable. You think that you will keep this right, allowed to assert his right. Would the defendant
for now, I will not sue this person but I will wait for suffer injury which is no longer just? For example,
the right time to when that person is in a bad place when it comes to land disputes. like siblings, they
and I will sue that person, even more, to bring him agree that one will no longer use his share in a
to dirt. If that is your justification then it is obviously certain parcel of land (gentleman's agreement). So
unreasonable and it can constitute laches. the other sibling cultivates all the land, planted
bananas, and other trees because he planted it and
ELEMENTS OF LACHES there are regular harvests and end up earning a
1. Conduct on the part of the defendant, or one fortune on it. Then the other sibling seeing that the
under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of other sibling is mejo umasenso, you have to give the
which complaint is made and for which the half of that land because I own that half. So what he
complainant seeks a remedy; does is he goes to court to order the land to him.
- when we may conduct essentially it means the That is definitely his right as an heir to inherit a
right that the defendant violated. parcel of the land, but if he brought that action
AFTER 30 years LACHES could operate to defeat his
2. Delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the claim. Because, first, he made his sibling believe that
complainant having had knowledge or notice of the he would no longer pursue the land. Second, there
defendant's conduct and having been afforded an will be an injury on the part of the other sibling who
opportunity to institute a suit; cultivated the land.
- when we say delay it is the attitude of the
complainant because when you describe delay, the Laches is founded in equity because while it is not
attitude of the complainant is that he/she prolongs rigidly set in the law, it operates to create a balance
the filing of the suit even if he/she knew that he had between a person who has a right and the person
the opportunity to file that suit. who is the subject of that right.

3. Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the PRESCRIPTION VS LACHES

defendant that the complainant would assert the
right on which he bares his suit; and PRESCRIPTION
- because of the lack of knowledge, the defendant - Concerned with the fact of delay
had reason to believe that the complainant was no - Matter of time
longer interested or would no longer pursue the - Statutory; applies at law
action because of the complainant's behavior. - Based on a fixed time

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 3

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

HELD:
LACHES In the case at bench, the CA correctly held that all
- Concerned with the effect of delay the elements of laches were present. First, Aurora
- Principally a question of inequity of permitting a and her family entrusted to Conrado the owner‘s
claim to be enforced, this inequity being founded on duplicate of the certificate of title of the subject
some change in the condition of the property or the property in 1945. In their complaint, petitioners
relation of the properties. even admitted that Conrado‘s family had been
staying in the subject property since 1912. Second,
If you look at the distinction, prescription is it took five decades, from 1945 to 1996, before
concerned with time while laches is concerned with Aurora and petitioners decided to enforce their
equity. right thereon. Third, respondents who lived all their
lives in the disputed property apparently were not
aware that Aurora would one day come out and
PANGASINAN VS. ALMAZORA claim ownership thereon. Fourth, there was no
Facts: We have Aquilina and Leoncia who borrowed question that respondents (FULLWAY) would be
money from Almazora to have their house prejudiced in the event that the suit would be
reconstructed. As security for the money that they allowed to prosper.
borrowed Leoncia entrusted to Almazora the
owner's duplicate title of their property in Laguna. The contention of petitioners that they were not in
With the death of Aquilina the property passed on delay in claiming their rights over the subject
to Aurora. Aurora then learned from Almazoras wife property is specious. For 50 years, Aurora and her
that the property has been already transferred to heirs did not take any legal step to uphold their
Almazora, in turn to Fullway Development. claim over the subject property, despite being fully
Aurora filed a complaint for damages asserting that aware that Conrado and his family were occupying
she has long demanded the return of the title from the same for a very long time. Even petitioner
Almazora, but it was Almazora who procrastinated Consuelo Vivar- Pangasinan testified that Conrado
with all kinds of excuses up until his death. The wife had been using the property for 30 years and that
apparently ignored the request until finally the Aurora had never shown her any evidence of
property was sold to Fullway. Aurora said that the ownership of the property.
payment for the property should be hers as the heir
and the rightful owner of the property.
The RTC held that Aurora was guilty of Laches. PHIL-AIR CONDITIONING CENTER VS. RCJ LINES
FACTS: Phil-Air sold to respondent RCJ Lines four
ISSUE: WON Aurora is barred by laches for Carrier Paris 240 air-conditioning units for buses
recovering the payment of the property as well as (units). The units included compressors,
the property. condensers, evaporators, switches, wiring, circuit
boards, brackets, and fittings. The total purchases

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 4

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

amounted to P1,240,000.00 as shown on a sales period. There was simply no delay (second element
invoice dated November 5, 1990.5 RCJ Lines paid of laches) where Phil-Air can be said to have
P400,000.00, leaving a balance of P840,000.00. negligently slept on its rights.
Because RCJ Lines refused to pay the balance Phil-
air sued RCJ lines to claim the balance plus the
damages. Eventually, judgment was issued in favor *In this case all the elements of laches are present.
of Phil-air, but upon execution RCJ Lines argued that Why? Phil-air filed a complaint in 1998 the time that
Phil-air was already barred by Laches. lapsed from August 4 1989 to 1998 is merely 8 years
The RTC and CA found merit on the contention of and 8 months. Well, within the prescriptive period
the RCJ lines. Was the contention correct? which is 10 years that Phil-air could have brought
the complaint against RCJ Lines. There was no delay.
There was no instance that Phil-air negligently slept
HELD: on its rights.
In sum, where the law provides the period within
which to assert a claim or file an action in court, the Who may acquire things by prescription? This is
assertion of the claim or the filing of the action in answered in Article 1107.
court at any time within the prescriptive period is Article 1107. Persons who are capable of acquiring
generally deemed reasonable, and thus, does not property or rights by the other legal modes may
call for the application of laches. As we held in one acquire the same by means of prescription.
case, unless reasons of inequitable proportions are
adduced, any imputed delay within the prescriptive Minors and other incapacitated persons may
period is not delay in law that would bar relief. acquire property or rights by prescription, either
personally or through their parents, guardians or
In Agra, et al. v. Philippine National Bank, we held legal representative. (1931a)
that "[l]aches is a recourse in equity [and] is applied
only in the absence, never in contravention, of
statutory law. Thus, laches cannot, as a rule, abate a * from 1107 we know that we only need the juridical
collection suit filed within the prescriptive period capacity to be able to acquire property by
mandated by the Civil Code." prescription not necessarily the capacity to act.
Why is it that minors or other incapacitated persons
The same conclusion holds true in the present case; are allowed to acquire property or rights by
not all the elements of laches are present. To prescription even if they lack the capacity to act?
repeat, Phil-Air filed the complaint with the RTC on Juridical capacity - the capacity to be subject to legal
April 1, 1998. The time elapsed from August 4, 1989 acts.
(the date of the price quotation, which is the earliest Capacity to act - the capacity to do something with
possible reckoning point), is eight years and eight a legally binding effect.
months, well within the ten-year prescriptive

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 5

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

In prescription what is only required is Juridical Last paragraph, to illustrate if you are a minor and
capacity, the capacity to be subject of legal acts. the time of your minority you acquired property but
Discernment of intent to possess is not required for your guardian was absent-minded. He sold the land
such personal acquisition. Because the law makes and kept the proceeds under his bed with the
no distinction as to what is required. thought that he would turn it over to you when you
reach the age of majority. But then your guardian
lost the payment money so the recourse of the
Article 1108. Prescription, both acquisitive and minor who becomes an adult eventually is to sue the
extinctive, runs against: guardian for damages considering the negligence of
(1) Minors and other incapacitated person who his guardian.
have parents, guardians or other legal
representatives; Article 1109. Prescription does not run between
(2) Absentees who have administrators, either husband and wife, even though there be a
appointed by them before their disappearance, or separation of property agreed upon in the marriage
appointed by the courts; settlements or by judicial decree.
(3) Persons living abroad, who have managers or Neither does prescription run between parents and
administrators; children during the minority or insanity of the latter,
(4) Juridical Persons, except the State and its and between guardian and ward during the
subdivisions. continuance of the guardianship. (n)
Persons who are disqualified from administering
their property have a right to claim damages from Article 1109 enumerates the converse against and
their legal representatives whose negligence has between whom prescription does not run.
been the cause of prescription. (1932a) Why does the prescription not run between the
husband and the wife? Because of the close
Article 1108 enumerates a person against whom the relationship between them, supposedly
prescription may run. This means that the period endangered by influence or affection which may
within which the right can be brought will run once prevent one from suing another.
it has accrued against these individuals. General Rule: There is no prescription between
Even if the people in item 1,2,3 do not themselves husband and wife.
have the means to enforce the right, prescription
still runs against them. Because if you look at the The same applies to parents and children during the
conditions attached to them, they have designated minority and insanity of the children and between
representatives to protect them. the guardian and ward. The prescription does not
Number 4, Juridical persons - the only thing you also run between the guardian and ward during the
need to remember here is that prescription does not continuance of the guardianship.
run against the state and its subdivisions.

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 6

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

Article 1110. Prescription, acquisitive and of it, you still cannot abandon it because it is not yet
extinctive, runs in favor of, or against a married yours.
woman. (n) 3. The renouncing must be made by the owner of
the right (not by a mere administrator or guardian
Article 1111. Prescription obtained by a co- for he does not own the property). -The renouncing
proprietor or a co-owner shall benefit the others. must be made by the owner of the rights. The only
(1933) one who can renounce is the person who owns the
rights, not even the representative in the person of
Article 1111 is a reinforcement of what you learn in the administrator or the guardian can renounce it
your property subject. Co-owners owned the same for you, because this right is personal to the owner.
thing but in shares. Many of them own the same 4. The renouncing must not prejudice the rights of
thing. When a co-owner obtains a prescription with others. -there should be no prejudice caused to
respect to a property, which the co-owners owned others because of you renouncing your right. For
in common then that prescription will benefit the example, if you renounce your right to this
other co-owners as well. particular property but one of your co-owners will
be prejudiced of such renunciation, because his
Article 1112. Persons with capacity to alienate share will be less then that is not allowed.
property may renounce prescription already
obtained, but not the right to prescribe in the When we say you renounce something, it means
future. you are abandoning it. You no longer have any plans
Prescription is deemed to have tacitly renounced of pursuing or getting that thing. A renunciation of
when the renunciation results from acts which imply prescription already obtained partakes the form of
the abandonment of the right acquired. (1935) a waiver as it is an intentional relinquishment of a
known and existing right by the person who
Requisites for Article 1112: possesses such right.
1. Renouncer must have capacity to alienate This is why we cannot waive a prescription if it is not
property (because renunciation is an exercise to the yet obtained because you cannot waive a right that
jus disponendi) - meaning that the person has the you do not yet have.
capacity to act. As a general rule, all waivers require
awareness of the right being waived. ILLUSTRATION: You owe someone a debt, 10 years
2. The property acquired must have already been already and you did not ask for the payment. So, the
obtained (hence the right to prescription in the person who lent you money, his right to collect from
future cannot be renounced, since manifestly, this you has already been prescribed and you have
would be contrary to public policy.) - you cannot gained the benefit of prescription. If you tell that
abandon what you cannot own. Even if you were to person that you will pay the debt, that's an example
obtain something in the future and you were certain of expressly renouncing the prescription already
obtained.

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 7

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

the complaint itself. The respondents brought their

As to form the renunciation, may be expressed or claim before a Philippine court only on March 6,
implied. 2001, more than 13 years after the collision
TACIT renunciation - it is implied, when you do occurred. Article 1139 of the Civil Code states that
something that somehow sends a message that you actions prescribed by the mere lapse of time are
have abandoned that particular right. fixed by law. Accordingly, the RTC of Catbalogan
EXPRESS renunciation - say it outright or you sign a cannot be faulted for the motu proprio dismissal of
document saying you renounced that right. It does the complaint filed before it. It is settled that
not require consent on the part of the person to be prescription may be considered by the courts motu
benefited. It does not require any solemnity or proprio if the facts supporting the ground are
formality. apparent from the pleadings or the evidence on
record.
CALTEX VS. AGUIRRE The peculiarity, in this case, is that the petitioners,
Facts: This case refers to one of the world's worst who were the defendants in the antecedent cases
maritime disasters. Dona Paz, which is owned by before the RTCs of Catbalogan and Manila, are most
Sulpicio lines, collided with MV Vector owned by adamant in invoking their waiver of the defense of
Vector Shipping. Now Vector was chartered by prescription while the respondents, to whom the
Caltex Philippines to transport the petroleum cause of action belong, have acceded to the
products. The collision between the 2 ships cost dismissal of their complaint. The petitioners posit
4,000 casualties and it caused the filing of multiple that there is a conflict between substantive law and
lawsuits. procedural law inasmuch as a waiver of prescription
The heirs of the victims filed a class action before is allowed under Article 1112 of the Civil Code, a
the court in Louisiana USA, but the same was substantive law even though the motu proprio
dismissed. They filed a suit for damages in 2001 dismissal of a claim that has prescribed is mandated
before the trial court of CATBALOGAN SAMAR under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.
against Sulpicio and Vector Shipping. RTC The Court has previously held that the right to
Catbalogan dismissed the complaint saying that the prescription may be waived or renounced pursuant
heir's cause of action had already been prescribed. to Article 1112 of the Civil Code:
However, Sulpicio and Vector shipping said NO Art. 1112. Persons with capacity to alienate
we're waiving our right to defense of prescription to property may renounce prescription already
overturn the decision that the trial continued. Can obtained, but not the right to prescribe in the
this be done? future. Prescription is deemed to have been tacitly
renounced when the renunciation results from acts
HELD: NO which imply the abandonment of the right acquired.
There is no dispute that the respondents' cause of In the instant case, not only once did the
action against the petitioners has been prescribed petitioners(CALTEX) expressly renounce their
under the Civil Code. In fact, the same is evident in defense of prescription. Nonetheless, the Court

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 8

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

cannot consider such waiver as basis in order to development of the national wealth. Thus it can be
reverse the rulings of the courts below as the acquired by prescription.
dismissal of the complaint had become final and
binding on both the petitioners and the What is an example of a property that is not
respondents. patrimonial:
Freedom parks - the one we have in Roxas.That's for
* What is peculiar in this case is that it was Caltex public use so that cannot be acquired by
who was adamant in invoking their waiver of the prescription
defense of prescription. While Aguirre to whom the
causes of action belong to have already acceded to
the dismissal of their complaint. So the court REPUBLICVS. ESPINOSA
previously held that the right to prescription may be Facts: Dominggo Espinosa filed with the Municipal
waived or renounced pursuant to Article 1112 of the Trial Court of Consolacion Cebu an application for
Civil Code. land registration covering a parcel of land in
Consolacion. Among others, he alleged that the
Article 1113. All things which are within the property is alienable and disposable and that he
commerce of men are susceptible of prescription, purchase the same from his mother Isabel Espinosa.
unless otherwise provided. Property of the State or He submitted a blueprint of a survey plant to prove
any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character that the property is in fact alienable and disposable,
shall not be the object of prescription. (1936a) but the Republic said that the property was not
alienable and disposable therefore he could not
Patrimonial Property – Property owned by the state have acquired said property.
in its proprietary capacity, not intended for public
use, public service, or for the development of the HELD:
national wealth. All lands of the public domain belong to the State,
which is the source of any asserted right to any
* Article 1113 discusses what may be the object of ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be
prescription. Generally by the reading of 1113 all clearly within private ownership are presumed to
things are within the commerce of man, including by belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not
implication patrimonial property of the State or any shown to have been reclassified or released as
of its Subdivisions. alienable agricultural land, or alienated to a private
person by the State, remain part of the inalienable
For Example, land owned by the State which intends public domain. The burden of proof in overcoming
to lease to a private corporation that's patrimonial the presumption of State ownership of the lands of
property already. Because the land is not being the public domain is on the person applying for
intended for public use, public service, or the registration (or claiming ownership), who must
prove that the land subject of the application is

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 9

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

alienable or disposable. To overcome this by a private persons and was actually in fact also
presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be intended Iligan City slum improvement and
established that the land subject of the application resettlement program and the relocation of families
(or claim) is alienable or disposable. who were dislocated by National Steel Corporation
For the original registration of title, the applicant 5 year expansion program.
(petitioners in this case) must overcome the
presumption that the land sought to be registered ISSUE: WON the Delfin spouses acquired the
forms part of the public domain. Unless public land property by prescription.
is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a
private person by the State, it remains part of the HELD: NO.
inalienable public domain. Indeed, "occupation "Land is considered of public dominion if it either:
thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how (a) is intended for public use; or (b) belongs to the
long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered State, without being for public use, and is intended
as a title." To overcome such presumption, for some public service or for the development of
incontrovertible evidence must be shown by the the national wealth." Land that belongs to the state
applicant. Absent such evidence, the land sought to but which is not or is no longer intended for public
be registered remains inalienable. use, for some public service or for the development
of the national wealth, is patrimonial property; it is
*The Supreme Court discussed what is the rule property owned by the State in its private capacity.
when it comes to lands of the public domain. In this Provinces, cities, and municipalities may also hold
case, Espinosa was not able to provide sufficient patrimonial lands.
proof that the property which he allegedly Private property "consists of all property belonging
purchased was part of alienable or disposable land. to private persons, either individually or
collectively," as well as "the patrimonial property of
HEIRS OF DELFIN VS. NHA the State, provinces, cities, and municipalities."
FACTS: The Delfin spouses who claimed that they Accordingly, only publicly owned lands which are
were owner of a 28,000 sq.m. parcel of land in patrimonial in character are susceptible to
ILIGAN CITY. They alleged that they have been in an prescription under Section 14(2) of Presidential
actual possession of the property since time Decree No. 1529. Consistent with this, Article 1113
immemorial and that NHA forcibly took a portion of of Civil Code demarcates properties of the state,
the property. Despite the repeated demands, NHA which are not patrimonial in character, as being not
refused to pay compensation for their occupation of susceptible to prescription:
the property. The Delfin spouses filed a complaint Art. 1113. All things which are within the commerce
for payment, the NHA on the other hand alleges that of men are susceptible of prescription, unless
the Delfin spouses property was actually part of a provided. Property of the State or any of its
Military reservation area and therefore it could not subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not
have been susceptible to prescription or ownership be the object of prescription.

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 10

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

Contrary to petitioners' theory then, for prescription by the Republic on several grounds being that the
to be viable, the publicly-owned land must be applicants nor their predecessors in interest have
patrimonial or private in character at the onset. been in open continuous exclusive and notorious
Possession for thirty (30) years does not convert it possession and occupation of the land in question is
into patrimonial property. For land of the public the concept of an owner. The tax declarations relied
domain to be converted into patrimonial property, upon by them do not constitute sufficient evidence
there must be an express declaration - "in the form to prove acquisition of the land and the parcel of the
of a law duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential land subject of the case was actually a land of public
Proclamation in cases where the President is duly domain. Hence, not susceptible of prescription.
authorized by law" - that "the public dominion
property is no longer intended for public service or HELD:
the development of the national wealth or that the It is well-settled that a CENRO or PENRO certification
property has been converted into patrimonial." is not enough to establish that a land is alienable and
However, a mere indorsement of the executive disposable.54 It should be "accompanied by an
secretary is not the law or presidential official publication of the DENR Secretary's issuance
proclamation required for converting land of the declaring the land alienable and disposable."
public domain into patrimonial property and In this case, although respondents were able to
rendering it susceptible to prescription. There then present a CENRO certification, a DENR-CENRO
was no viable declaration rendering the Iligan report with the testimony of the DENR officer who
property to have been patrimonial property at the made the report, and the survey plan showing that
onset. Accordingly, regardless of the length of the property is already considered alienable and
petitioners' possession, no title could vest on them disposable, these pieces of evidence are still not
by way of prescription. sufficient to prove that the land sought to be
registered is alienable and disposable. Absent the
*There was insufficient proof presented to show DENR Secretary's issuance declaring the land
that indeed the land had already been converted alienable and disposable, the land remains part of
into patrimonial property. So even if we say that he the public domain.
is already 45 years living there, beyond the period of Thus, even if respondents have shown, through
prescription required, then that will not still ripen their testimonial evidence, that they and their
into acquisitive prescription because prescription predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
does not run against the state with respect to continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
properties that are not patrimonial in nature. occupation of the property since June 12, 1945, they
still cannot register the land for failing to establish
REPUBLIC VS. MALIJAN-JAVIER that the land is alienable and disposable.
Facts: Lauriana and Eden Malijan-Javier applied for
the registration of their title over a parcel of land *The court is strict when it comes to proof as to
situated in Talisay Batanggas. But this was opposed whether it is susceptible of prescription because

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 11

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

what is required is there has to be an issuance from ∙ Specific provisions on prescription found
the DENR secretary or the President himself in cases elsewhere in the Code, or in special laws, prevail
he is allowed to make such a declaration. over the provisions of prescription in this particular
Again if the land belongs to the state, then it is not chapter of the Civil Code.
susceptible to prescription. ∙ Example: a legitimate child may bring an action
to claim legitimacy as long as he is alive; an
ARTICLE 1114. Creditors and all other persons illegitimate child may bring an action to establish
interested in making the prescription effective may illegitimate filiation during his lifetime.
avail themselves thereof notwithstanding the
express or tacit renunciation by the debtor or * Essentially, there are other provisions on the
proprietor. (1937) prescription that there are other provisions in the
prescription found elsewhere in the code or in
Example: X owes Y a sum of money, but X has special laws.
acquired a certain parcel of land. By prescription. If In the example, that specific period will govern that
X renounces the prescription, may Y make us of the particular situation and not the general rules of a
same land? Yes, to the extent of her credit prescription under the civil code.
(assuming X has no other property which can The RULE OF THUMB is that when there is a specific
answer the debt). law or there is a specific code or portion of the civil
code that governs that particular prescriptive period
*Article 1114 was established to protect a third then you follow that specific law and not the general
person who may be prejudiced by their chapter of prescription under the civil code.
renunciation.
If the land is worth more than his credit then she can Article 1116. Prescription already running before
only take or possess up until what her credit is the effectivity of this Code shall be governed by laws
worth. This is assuming that X has no other property previously in force; but if since the time this Code
which can answer for the debt. took effect the entire period herein required for
NOTE: The creditors can avail of the benefits of prescription should elapse, the present Code shall
prescription notwithstanding the express or tacit be applicable, even though by the former laws a
renunciation if it is found that they can be longer period might be required. (1939)
prejudiced by the renunciation.
∙ If the period for prescription BEGAN and ENDED
Article 1115. The provisions of the present Title are under the OLD laws, said OLD laws govern.
understood to be without prejudice to what in this ∙ If the Period for prescription began under the
code or in special laws is established with respect to New Civil Code, the New Civil Code governs.
specific cases of prescription. (1938) ∙ If the period for prescription began under the
OLD law and continues under the New Civil Code,
the OLD law applies.

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 12

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

o Exception: New civil Code will apply if the New 2. Capacity of loser to lose by prescription
civil Code requires a shorter period and the shorter 3. Object must be susceptible of prescription
period has already elapsed since 30 August 1950 4. Lapse of required period of time
(when NCC became effective) 5. The possession must be:
a. In the concept of an owner
*For example, under the old civil code regardless if b. Public
the possessor knew that the property who was c. Peaceful (not through force, violence or
currently occupying belonged to another. intimidation)
Regardless of good or bad faith is the possessor, the d. Continuous or uninterrupted
prescriptive period for him to acquire the land
would have been 10 years. But under the 3rd rule *Article 1117 is ordinary when it is acquired in good
the 10 years began in 1948 it would end in 1958 faith and with just title and it is extraordinary when
because its 10 years, so it would have already ended it is acquired in bad faith and without just title.
when the New Civil Code took effect which was in
1950. Article 1118. Possession has to be in the concept of
What is the rule that will apply? The old law will an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted.
apply because under the 3rd rule because it began (1941)
under the old law and it continued under the New ∙ Article 523. Possession is the holding of a thing
Civil Code. or the enjoyment of a right.
∙ Article 525. The possession of things or rights
Example: The prescriptive period under the old was may be had in one of two concepts; either in the (1)
10 years, but under the new civil code is 4 years and concept of an owner, or (2) in that of the holder of
the 4 years has already lapsed since August 1950. the thing or right to keep or enjoy it, the ownership
The New civil code will apply because the new civil pertaining to another person.
code requires a shorter period, and that period has
already lapsed since August 40, 1950. * With respect to Article 1118, what you need to
establish is that you are holding the thing in a
Article 1117. Acquisitive Prescription of dominion concept of an owner.
and other real rights may be ordinary or Concept of an owner - the possession must be in the
extraordinary. concept of an owner, and he may be the owner
Ordinary Acquisitive prescription requires himself or one who claims to be so. He must do
possession of things in good faith and with just title outward acts which show the public at large that he
for the time fixed by law. (1940a) possesses the thing as an owner or claims to be its
owner.
Requisites common to both ordinary and If you are only a holder, this will not ripen to
extraordinary prescription: prescription because obviously when you were
1. Capacity of acquirer to acquire by prescription merely a holder, you recognize that another person

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 13

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

with the superior right to you is the owner of that license or tolerance it will never ripen to acquisitive
particular property. prescription.

Article 1119. Acts of possessory character executed CANLAS VS. REPUBLIC

in virtue of license or by mere tolerance of the FACTS: We have LUZVIMINDA Canlas who applied
owners shall not be available for the purposes of for the original registration of titles and their PD
possession. 1529 with respect to a parcel of land located in
RIZAL. There was no opposition to her application
License – positive act of the owner in favor of the and the Republic did not submit its comment or
holder of the thing. opposition despite the opportunity given by the
Tolerance – Passive acquiescence of the owner to Trial Court. The Trial Court eventually granted the
the facts being performed by another which appear registration of the property. But, upon appeal, the
to be contrary to the owner. Republic showed itself and said that CANLAS was
not able to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and
*Basically, saying that possession is merely being notorious possession and occupation of the
tolerated, meaning someone knows you have their property. This was actually upheld by the CA. They
property. But they are allowing you to just possess upheld the contention of the REPUBLIC.
it and that kind of possession will never be eligible
for prescription. Unless you repudiate or oppose HELD:
that ownership and say NO this is not yours this is Possession involves committing acts of dominion
mine, I am holding this in a concept of an owner. Just over a parcel of land in such a way that an owner
a declaration will not suffice; you will have other would perform over his or her property. In
documents or other proof that indeed the property explaining the nature of the terms “possession and
is yours. But that is one way you can dispute occupation” provided in law, this court has held
someone else's ownership over that thing. In that that:
case that is no longer tolerance in your possession. The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since
these words are separated by the conjunction and,
License is when the owner gives you a license to do the clear intention of the law is not to make one
a particular thing, there is an explicit act. Like synonymous with the other. Possession is broader
whether it be through allowing you to do it and than occupation because it includes constructive
opening a gate for you to be able to enter the possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word
property or by word of mouth or by. a contract. occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing
When we say Tolerance, he knows you were there effect of constructive possession. Taken together
and let you be there and do nothing to prevent you with the words open, continuous, exclusive and
from possessing that thing. notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight
Whether it be by license or tolerance, the the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his
possession the fact that it is merely possession by possession must not be a mere fiction. Actual

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 14

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

possession of a land consists in the manifestation of clear demonstration of occupation that can ripen to
acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party ownership.
would naturally exercise over his own property.
(Italics in the original) HEIRS OF YAMBAO VS. HERMOGENES
Moreover, to qualify as open, continuous, exclusive, FACTS: Here, a parcel of land located in Zambales
and notorious possession and occupation, the which was originally possessed by Macaria de
possession must be of the following character: ocampo. Macaria's Nephew Hermogenes acted as
Possession is open when it is patent, visible, the administrator of the property and paid realty
apparent, notorious and not clandestine. It is taxes for such property. Hermogenes have a
continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not children, Juliano, Dominic, Teofilo, Feliciano and etc,
intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the all their names are named Yambao. After
adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion Hermogenes died, it was claimed that all of his heirs
over the land and an appropriation of it to his own were free to pick and harvest from the fruit-bearing
use and benefit; and notorious when it is so trees planted onto the subject property. Eleonor
conspicuous that it is generally known and talked Yambao, Ulpianos Daughter even constructed the
of by the public or the people in the neighborhood. house on the subject property. However, sometime
Petitioner has sufficiently shown that she, through on 2005 the communal and mutual use of the
her predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, subject property by the heirs of Hermogenes ceased
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and when the Heirs of Feliciano, prohibited them from
occupation of the 9,751-square-meter parcel of land entering the property. The Heirs of Feliciano even
located in Barrio Macamot, Municipality of ejected Eleonor from the subject property. This
Binangonan, Province of Rizal, since June 12, 1945 prompted the heirs to file with the trial court a
or earlier. Documentary evidence to prove complaint for partition, declaration of nullity of title,
possession was presented and substantiated by the documents, and damages against the Heirs of
witnesses’ testimonies. There were sufficient pieces Feliciano.
of evidence to show that petitioner and her The Heirs of Hermogenes alleged that they and the
predecessors-in-interest exercised specific acts of heirs of Feliciano are in fact co-owners of the subject
ownership such as: farming activities; allowing the property having inherited the right thereto from
excavation of land for “pulang lupa” to make clay Hermogenes. The Heirs of Feliciano denied these
pots; paying realty taxes; declaring the property for allegations saying that it was only Feliciano who was
tax purposes; employing a caretaker; causing in possession of the Subject Property in the Concept
corrections in entries in public documents with of an owner since time immemorial.
regard to the land; and demanding unlawful
occupants to vacate the premises. ISSUE: WON the Heirs of Feliciano have exclusive
possession over the property and did they acquire
*The SC discusses what possession involves. She the said property by prescription against the Heirs
also showed specific acts of ownership. This is a of Hermogenes.

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 15

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an

HELD: NO ouster of the cestui que trust or other co-owners;
As pointed out by the CA, the R TC overlooked the (2) that such positive acts of repudiation have been
fact that the subject property is co-owned by the made known to the cestui que trust or other co-
parties herein, having inherited the same from owners; and (3) that the evidence thereon must be
Hermogenes. Feliciano's free patent application clear and convincing.
indicated that he merely tacked his possession of The issuance of the certificate of title would
the subject property from Hermogenes, his father, constitute an open and clear repudiation of any
who held the property in peaceful, open, trust. In such a case, an action to demand partition
continuous, and adverse manner in the concept of among co-owners prescribes in 10 years, the point
an owner since 1944. This is an implicit recognition of reference being the date of the issuance of
of the fact that Feliciano merely co-owns the subject certificate of title over the property. But this rule
property with the other heirs of Hermogenes. applies only when the plaintiff is not in possession
Indeed, the heirs of Feliciano have not presented of the property, since if a person claiming to be the
any evidence that would show that Hermogenes owner thereof is in actual possession of the
bequeathed the subject property solely to Feliciano. property, the right to demand partition does not
A co-ownership is a form of trust, with each owner prescribe.
being a trustee for each other. Mere actual
possession by one will not give rise to the inference *If you look at the situation this is actually a co-
that the possession was adverse because a co- ownership because they both inherit them from
owner is, after all, entitled to possession of the their parents who in turn inherited from
property. Thus, as a rule, prescription does not run Hermogenes. Just because they are co-owners
in favor of a co-heir or co-owner as long as he doesn't mean that prescription cannot run. In this
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership; case there were no such act in the part of Feliciano
and he cannot acquire by prescription the share of even if there had been then the period for the same
the other co-owners, absent a clear repudiation of had not yet lapsed. In this case, the SC held that the
the co-ownership. An action to demand partition property was still co-owned by all the heirs of
among co-owners is imprescriptible, and each co- Hermogenes.
owner may demand at any time the partition of the Here it is an extraordinary prescription because
common property. there is an awareness on the part of Feliciano that
Prescription may nevertheless run against a co- he is not the sole heir.
owner if there is adverse, open, continuous and
exclusive possession of the co-owned property by ABALOS VS. HEIRS OF TORIO
the other co-owner/s. In order that a co-owners FACTS: The Heirs of Torio filed a complaint for
possession may be deemed adverse to the cestui recovery of possession and damages against JAime
que trust or other co-owners, the following Abalos and the Spouses Salazar. The HEirs
requisites must concur: (1) that he has performed contended that they are the Children of Vicente

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 16

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

Torio who have died and at the time of his death he rights, but the grantor was not the owner or could
left behind the parcel of land in Pangasinan. They not transmit any right.
also alleged that during the lifetime of Vicente and In the instant case, it is clear that during their
through his Tolerance Jaime and the Spouses possession of the property in question, petitioners
Salazar were allowed to stay and build their acknowledged ownership thereof by the
respective houses on the subject parcel of land and immediate predecessor-in-interest of
that the same held true even after Vicente's death. respondents. This is clearly shown by the Tax
However in 1985 the Heirs asked Jaime and the Declaration in the name of Jaime for the year 1984
Spouses SAlazar to vacate the subject Lot, but they wherein it contains a statement admitting that
refused to heed the demand of the respondents, Jaime's house was built on the land of Vicente,
forcing respondents to file the complaint. respondents' immediate predecessor-in-interest.
Abalos on the other hand argued that the Heirs Petitioners never disputed such an
cause of action is barred by Acquisitive PRescription acknowledgment. Thus, having knowledge that
and that they are absolute and exclusive owners and they nor their predecessors-in-interest are not the
possessors of the Disputed lot, being the deceased owners of the disputed lot, petitioners' possession
predecessors of defendants. That defendants and could not be deemed as possession in good faith as
their predecessors in interest have been in actual to enable them to acquire the subject land by
continuous and peaceful possession of the subject ordinary prescription. In this respect, the Court
lot as owners since time immemorial. agrees with the CA that petitioners' possession of
the lot in question was by mere tolerance of
HELD: respondents and their predecessors-in-interest.
Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real Acts of possessory character executed due to license
rights may be ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary or by mere tolerance of the owner are inadequate
acquisitive prescription requires possession in good for purposes of acquisitive prescription. Possession,
faith and with just title for ten (10) years. Without to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right,
good faith and just title, acquisitive prescription can must be en concepto de dueño, or, to use the
only be extraordinary in character which requires common law equivalent of the term, that
uninterrupted adverse possession for thirty (30) possession should be adverse, if not, such
years. possessory acts, no matter how long, do not start
Possession "in good faith" consists in the the running of the period of prescription.
reasonable belief that the person from whom the
thing is received has been the owner thereof, and *Supreme Court discussed again what is Acquisitive
could transmit his ownership. There is "just title" Prescription and what this possession is in good
when the adverse claimant came into possession of faith. Abalos here actually recognized the ownership
the property through one of the modes recognized of the ascendants of the Heirs of Torio. Here, they
by law for the acquisition of ownership or other real cannot say that they possessed the property in the
concept of an owner because again there was

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 17

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

acknowledgement that they were merely Judicial Summons - a command from the court that
possessing the property, but the owner thereof was the person should appear before the court for a
Vicente Torio. specific purpose.
When there is service of Judicial Summons upon the
Article 1120. Prescription is interrupted for the possessor, possession is civily interrupted. - this is
purpose of prescription, naturally or civilly. the General Rule

1. Naturally
o Article 1121. Possession is naturally interrupted Article 1124. Judicial summons shall be deemed not
when through any cause it should cease for more to have been issued and shall not give rise to
than one year. // The old possession is not revived if interruption:
a new possession should be exercised by the same (1) If it should be void for lack of legal solemnities;
adverse claimant. (2) If the plaintiff should desist from the complaint
o Article 1122. If the natural interruption is for only or should allow the proceedings to lapse;
one year or less, the time elapsed shall be counted (3) If the possessor should be absolved from the
in favor of the prescription. complaint.
2. Civilly In all these cases, the period of the interruption shall
o Article 1123. Civil interruption is produced by be counted for the prescription. (1946a)
judicial summons to the possessor.
*When shall it be deemed to not have been issued
*Article 1120 provides us with how possession is and give rise to interruption?
interrupted. There is natural interruption when it is That's what 1124 talks about.
for any cause provided it should cease for more than (1) if the method required by the court has not been
one year. Under 1122 later if it is one year or less the complied with, it will render service of summons
time that elapses shall be counted in favor of the void. In the cases if the service of summon is void or
prescription shall not be deemed a natural the summon is void then there is no civil
interruption. interruption.
(2) He voluntarily withdraws the complaint for
Example: You have been occupying the property for whatever reason or if he shows no interest in
6 years and you change houses, but you put a fence pursuing the case by not actively seeking the
around the former property, and someone prosecution of the case.
possesses that property for more than one year. So Instances: When the complainant shows that he is
the possession was interrupted because you no longer interested in pursuing the case then the
possess that property of yours for more than a year. court can actually dismiss the complaint for the lack
of interest to prosecute.
The cause of Civil Interruption is the production of (3) Absolved meaning that the complaint was found
JUDICIAL SUMMONS to the possessor. without merit, so the complaint was dismissed.

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 18

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

In the instances in Article 1124, Judicial summons

even if serve will not give rise to interruption. The HELD:
period for prescription continues to run as if there Although both the trial court and respondent court
was never an interruption. Because the supposed accepted the petitioner‘s claim of such a sale, the
said period that interruption shall be counted subject thereof was, however, not positively
towards prescription. identified. The land purchased by Rafael from
Ciriano Pacheco was covered by Tax Declaration No.
PACHECO VS. COURT OF APPEALS 12490 with an area of 4,698 square meters, and in
FACTS: Emiliano Pacheco who owned a parcel of an his name. On the other hand, the land foreclosed by
unregistered land with an area of around 4000 sq.m. the bank, which Ciriaco‘s father later repurchased
He sold a thousand square meters of this to Rafael and then sold to him, was covered by Tax
Pacheco in 1939, this portion was mortgaged to PNB Declaration No. 3431 with an area of 1,170 square
by RAFAEL. It was sold at public auction upon meters, and in the name of Rafael Pacheco. It was
foreclosure of the mortgage in 1959. Rafael not show by Ciriaco that Tax Declaration No. 3431
however was able to repurchase the land in 1960, revised in part or in whole Tax Declaration No.
then in 1964 he sold the same to CIRIACO Pacheco 12490. Nevertheless, whether or not the subject of
who then sold a portion thereof to Estrelia Razo Rey. the sale was the land in dispute, it was clearly
In a civil case entitled "Daniel Hernandez vs. established that Rafael Pacheco started occupying
Pacheco", a decision was rendered in 1963 this time the same since 1939 and that his possession was
again Emiliano Pacheco. To enforce it certain public, open, peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted,
properties including the land of CIRIACO Pacheco adverse and in the concept of owner until and even
was levied upon and sold at public auction. beyond 1949. After ten years of such possession,
Hernandez was the purchaser; he then filed a acquisitive prescriptive title was vested in Rafael
complaint against the petitioners alleging that the Pacheco, pursuant to Article 1134 of the Civil Code.
lands the latter were occupying which they refused Consequently, when he mortgaged the land to the
to vacate was part of the property covered by Tax PNB, he did so not as a mere possessor but as an
declaration 6704 which he had acquired in the owner by virtue of prescription under Article 1134
judgement sale. The complaint was dismissed but of the Civil code. Article 1121 could no longer apply
upon appeal, the CA said that the PACHECOS had to him because the ten-year prescriptive period
not in fact acquired the property by prescription as had already been completed at the time. (ordinary
their possession had been interrupted by THE acquisitive prescription)
FORECLOSURE SALE. It follows that when Rafael Pacheco sold the land to
Ciriaco Pacheco, the latter acquired the rights of the
ISSUE: WON the PACHECOS acquire the property by former as owner of the property, and not as a mere
Prescription and was there any civil interruption of possessor thereof, and so did the other petitioners
this case because of the filing of the case by the fact who derived their title from Ciriaco Pacheco.
that the property was sold.

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 19

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

Applying the above principles, we hold that the the property and more or less they alleged the same
judgment sale in favor of private respondent for the second lot which ended up being sold to their
Hernandez did not and could not cover the lands ascendants Araceli Tanyag. On the other hand the
claimed by the petitioners as these lots no longer Heirs. of Gabriel alleged that some time in 1979 Jose
belonged to the judgment debtor when they were Gabriel their father secured in his name the first
levied upon and sold. That sale covered only the slot.
lands still under the ownership of the judgment The Heirs of Tanyag instituted a Civil Case alleging
debtor and did not affect the ownership of the that the Heirs of Gabriel never occupied the first slot
property titled in the name of the herein petitioners. and actually fraudulently caused the inclusion of the
None of them was a party to the civil case brought second lot.
by the private respondent against Emiliano Pacheco.
ISSUE: WON the properties acquired by
*The SC said that in this case the property had Prescription.
already been acquired by prescription. 06:08 WON there is an interruption in the possession of
(SORRY THAT's MY DOG) the Heirs of Tanyag from acquiring the properties by
The judgement debtor here is Emiliano Pacheco. At prescription.
the time the judgement against Emiliano Pacheco
was executed the property that was executed no HELD:
longer belong to him it belongs to Rafael Pacheco In this case, the CA was mistaken in concluding that
and subsequently passed on to Ciriaco Pacheco. So petitioners have not acquired any right over the
the property should not be executed upon because subject property simply because they failed to
it did not belong to Emiliano Pacheco. establish Benita Gabriel‘s title over said property.
In this case there was no interruption because the The appellate court ignored petitioners‘ evidence of
possession or the period of 10 years for acquisitive possession that complies with the legal
prescription to RIPEN has already lapsed. requirements of acquiring ownership by
prescription.
HEIRS OF TANYAG VS GABRIEL Acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring
FACTS: This case is about a property located in ownership by a possessor through the requisite
Taguig. The first parcel was originally declared in the lapse of time. In order to ripen into ownership,
name of Jose Gabriel while the second parcel was possession must be in the concept of an owner,
originally declared in the name of Dane Bayan. The public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Possession is
Heirs of Tanyag claimed that the first lot was owned open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious
by Benita Gabriel the sister of Jose Gabriel and and not clandestine. It is continuous when
through subsequent transactions the property uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or
ended up with Tanyag who is the father of the occasional; exclusive when the adverse possessor
petitioners as evidenced by a Deed of Sale notarized can show exclusive dominion over the land and an
in 1964. The Heirs of Tanyag then took possession of appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; and

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 20

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is * The SC said that from 1969 until the filing of this
generally known and talked of by the public or the complaint by the Heirs of Tanyag in March 2000, the
people in the neighborhood. The party who asserts Heirs of Gabriel have been in continuous, public, and
ownership by adverse possession must prove the adverse possession of subject land for 31 years. The
presence of the essential elements of acquisitive heirs of Tanyag have acquired ownership over the
prescription. subject property so such right cannot be defeated
Art. 1137. Ownership and other real rights over by respondents acts of declaring the property for
immovables also prescribe through uninterrupted Tax purposes in 1979 and obtaining a Torrens
adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without certificate of title in their name in 1998.
need of title or of good faith. (Emphasis supplied.) Since there was no receipt of summons in this case
Heirs of Tanyag adverse possession is reckoned from there was no interruption in the possession of the
1969 with the issuance of TD No. 1145 in the name Heirs of Tanyag. Furthermore, as the Heirs of Tanyag
of Araceli Tanyag, which tax declaration canceled TD have been found to be in possession of the subject
No. 6425 in the name of Jose Gabriel. It is settled land for 31 years. Which is more than the 30 years
that tax receipts and declarations are prima facie required by law then the property have been
proofs of ownership or possession of the property acquired by them through extraordinary
for which such taxes have been paid. Coupled with prescription. The TAX DECLARATION and the
proof of actual possession of the property, they may subsequent titling afterwards does not fall within
become the basis of a claim for ownership. the acts which would have produced civil
Petitioners‘ caretaker, Juana Quinones, has since interruption under Article 1123. Because 1123 is
lived in a nipa hut, planted vegetables and tended a categorical when it says that Civil Interruption is
piggery on the land. Aside from paying taxes due on produced by Judicial Summons to the possessor.
the property, petitioners also exercised other acts When were Judicial Summons actually served? The
of ownership such as selling the 468-square meter complaint was filed in 2000 and obviously summons
portion to Sta. Barbara who had constructed can be given when there is a complaint. At the time
thereon a nine-door apartment building. they filed a complaint in 2000, 31 years had already
It was only in 1979 that respondents began to assert passed and therefore there was nothing that they
a claim over the property by securing a tax could interrupt because the possession of the Heirs
declaration in the name of Jose Gabriel albeit over a of Tanyag had already ripen into ownership.
bigger area than that originally declared. In 1998,
they finally obtained an original certificate of title
covering the entire 1,763 square meters which Article 1125. Any express or tacit recognition which
included Lot 1. Did these acts of respondents the possessor may make of the owner’s right also
effectively interrupt the possession of petitioners interrupts possession.
for purposes of prescription?
We answer in the negative. Example: You claim that you have been occupying
this piece of land for eight years in good faith. But

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 21

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

when you recognize that the tax declaration has rely on to tell you the truth about that property that
been registered in the name of someone else and you buying.
he’s been paying the tax, that interrupts possession. Therefore 1126 is saying that as to 3rd persons in
(TACIT RECOGNITION) cases where there is a real right but there is no
Torrens title, that 3rd person cannot be prejudiced
by any other persons real right.
Article 1126. Against a title recorded in the Registry Example: A bought the land from B. A has a Deed of
of Property, ordinary prescription of ownership or Sale with Him. But later on B sells that land to
real rights shall not take place to the prejudice of a another person C. So C cannot be charged with
third person, except in virtue of another title also knowledge of the sale between A and B because
recorded; and the time shall begin to run from the there is no Torrens Title reflecting that transaction.
recording of the latter. Even if A has a Deed of Sale with him.
As to lands registered under the Land Registration If for example the Deed of Sale was registered, and
Act, the provisions of that special law shall govern. A caused the issuance of the Torrens Title over that
land subsequently then that is the time that you can
∙ Does not refer to land covered by Torren’s title charge C with knowledge of the Sale because the
but other kinds of land. Torrens title issued in the name of A.
∙ Example: Land that is the subject of a deed of
sale which deed of sale is registered with the SUPAPO VS. DE JESUS
Registry of Deeds. (But the land is not covered by a Facts: The spouses Supapo filed a complaint for
Torrens Title) Accion Publiciana against the Spouses de Jesus,
MAcario Bernardo and persons claiming rights
*Article 1126 does not refer to the land covered by under them. They wanted was for the respondents
Torrens Title. de Jesus to vacate a piece of land in Quezon City.
Torrens Title - it refers to the title issued by the Now this land is titled under Spouses Supapos
Registry of Deeds offering you property. Names. The spouses Supapo did not reside on the
When you have a Torrens title, nakalagay kasi yung subject land and they also did not employ an
pangalan mo and how much or what is the land overseer, but they made sure to visit the lot at least
covered, how much they are covered by that title twice a year.
and all claims made to that land if any. During one of their visits in 1992, they saw 2 houses
built on the subject lot. The houses were built
So, if you are the buyer under the Torrens System without their knowledge and permission. They later
and you want to see has anyone made a claim to on learned that the spouses de Jesus occupied one
that land, you only need to look at the title. Because house but Macario occupied the other one. So the
the Torrens Title is like the Storybook that will tell Spouses Supapo asked the respondents to leave the
you the details of that property. So, if there are no property.
Torrens Title there is no document that you could

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 22

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

One of the arguments of Spouses de Jesus is that Even if the defendant attacks the Torrens Title
their possession of the property has already ripened because of a purported sale or transfer of the
into ownership through acquisitive prescription. property, we still rule in favor of the holder of the
Torrens Title if the defendant cannot adduce, in
HELD: addition to the deed of sale, a duly-registered
In a long line of cases, we have consistently ruled certificate of title proving the alleged transfer or
that lands covered by a title cannot be acquired by sale.
prescription or adverse possession. We have also
held that a claim of acquisitive prescription is *Registered lands or lands with a Torrens title are
baseless when the land involved is a registered land already protected under PD No. 1529. When the
because of Article 112649 of the Civil Code in title is issued covering a particular piece of land, the
relation to Act 496 [now, Section 47 of Presidential contents of that title are deemed to be sufficient
Decree (PD) No. 152950]. notice to anyone dealing with the title as to the
The Spouses Supapo (as holders of the TCT) enjoy a transactions that involved that property. The
panoply of benefits under the Torrens system. The issuance of that title deemed to be notice to the
most essential insofar as the present case is whole world as to the state of that particular
concerned is Section 47 of PD No. 1529 which states: property. It is already protected under 1529 which
Section 47. Registered land not subject to is why 1126 does not cover properties which are
prescriptions. No title to registered land in registered under PD No.1529.
derogation of the title of the registered owner shall
be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. READ LAUSA VS QUILATAN (how prescription does
In addition to the imprescriptibly, the person who not run against government)
holds a Torrens Title over a land is also entitled to
the possession thereof. The right to possess and Article 1127. The good faith of the possessor
occupy the land is an attribute and a logical consists in the reasonable belief that the person
consequence of ownership. Corollary to this rule is from whom he received the thing was the owner
the right of the holder of the Torrens Title to eject thereof and could transmit his ownership.
any person illegally occupying their property. Again,
this right is imprescriptible. *1127 defines what is good faith. In addition to our
In Bishop v. CA,55 we held that even if it be definition of 1127, we also have our guiding
supposed that the holders of the Torrens Title were principles under Articles 526-529, which describes
aware of the other persons' occupation of the when good faith exists.
property, regardless of the length of that
possession, the lawful owners have a right to Article 1128. The conditions of good faith required
demand the return of their property at any time as the possession in Articles 526. 527, 528, and 529 of
long as the possession was unauthorized or merely this Code and likewise necessary for the
tolerated, if at all.

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 23

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

determination of good faith in the prescription of would put that person to all sorts of legal problem.
ownership and other real rights. So that's why good faith is presumed instead.
∙ Article 526. He is deemed a possessor in good
faith who is not aware that there exists in his title or ∙ Article 528. Possession acquired in good faith
mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. does not lose this character except in the case and
from the moment facts exist which show that the
He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possessor is not unaware that he possesses the
possesses in any case contrary to the foregoing. thing improperly or wrongfully.

Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law *Under article 528 once your possession starts in
may be the basis of good faith. good faith it is presumed that you continue to
possess that thing in good faith until it is shown that
*This article is basically saying that it’s possible that you have knowledge of the defect and title that will
there is a defect in your title. That there is make you aware that you are in bad faith already.
something wrong with your title. It's just that you Whoever alleges that there is bad faith already then,
are not aware of the same because there was no he has to prove that particular bad faith.
way of you knowing it or because the person who
bought it is a layman so wala syang specific ∙ Article 529. It is presumed that possession
knowledge of the law and the law is confusing to continues to be enjoyed in the same character in
him even if he may had try to ask the opinion of which it was acquired until the contrary is proved.
other individuals it still doesn't make sense to him,
so he believe that he was right about his title and *Article 529 is more like of a general statement
that he really owns that property. That still counts compare 528 if you started your possession in bad
as good faith because that is a mistake upon a faith then the presumption is that you are still in bad
DOUBTFUL or DIFFICULT question of the law. faith at the time your possession is questioned. So,
if you started in good faith then it is presumed that
∙ Article 527. Good Faith is always presumed, you are still in good faith at the time that your
and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of a possession is questioned.
possessor rests the burden of proof.
NOTE: These are all presumptions, and that good
*It means that everyone who comes to court or faith may later change into bad faith.
makes his defense is presumed to be making a claim
honestly. This is to prevent malicious imputation of Question: If your possession turns from good faith
bad faith. If it were the converse that bad faith was to bad faith, how do you count the years you need
presumed, it would be very easy to just accuse to be able to acquire property by possession? It
someone of bad faith for the sake of it and that depends if you’re dealing with real property or
personal property.

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 24

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

*1129 refers to just title.

(a) Ans: For real property, three years of possession
in bad faith would be equivalent to one year of Article 1130. The title for prescription must be true
possession in good faith. (Reason: 30 years would be and valid.
required for extraordinary prescription, but only 10
years are needed for ordinary prescription.) (3:1) Article 1131. For the purposes of prescription, just
title must be proved; it is never presumed.
(b) For personal property, two years of possession
in bad faith would be equivalent to one year in good Just title – Titulo Colorado that is, there was a mode
faith. (Reason: Extraordinary prescription needs of acquisition, but the grantor was not the owner.
eight years; ordinary prescription, four years.) Had he been the owner, there would be no more
necessity for prescription.
EXAMPLE: You are a possessor of good faith of a Example of modes: by donation, testate and
land for 6 years but on the 7th year your possession intestate succession, in consequence of certain
turns into bad faith because you were made aware contracts (like the different modes of delivery)
of the defect of the title, but you ignored it. You still
have 4 years left sana if your possession had been in Article 1132. The ownership of movables prescribes
good faith continuously. But since you were in bad through uninterrupted possession for four years in
faith, you will have to convert then. How much good faith.
longer you need to possess the property in bad The ownership of personal property also prescribes
faith? through uninterrupted possession for eight years,
Answer: 12 years, because 4 years good faith without need of any other condition.
balance multiply that by 3 so magiging 12 years of With regard to the right of the owner to recover
bad faith. That is required for your possession to personal property lost or of which he has been
ripen to acquisitive prescription. It will not go back illegally deprived, as well as with respect to
to 0 it's just that you have to multiply the remaining movables acquired in a public sale, fair, or market,
years in good faith either by 3 or 2 depending on or from a merchant’s story the provisions of articles
what kind of property is going to be possessed. 559 and 1505 of this Code shall be observed.

*For movables ordinary prescription again an

Article 1129. For the purposes of prescription, there uninterrupted possession of 4 years while
is just title when the adverse claimant came into extraordinary prescription will require 8 years. The
possession of the property through one of the last paragraph refers to Article 559.
modes recognized by law for the acquisition of
ownership or other real rights, but the grantor was o Article 559. The possession of movable property
not the owner or could not transmit any right. acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title.
Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 25

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it *The law will not allow for anyone to benefit from
from the person in possession of the same. the proceed of a crime, which is why article 1133
exists.
If the possessor of a movable lost or which the Example: An item was taken through a robbery, the
owner has been unlawfully deprived, has acquired it same can never be owned by the offender through
in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot prescription.
obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid
therefor. (464a) ARTICLE 1134. Ownership and other real rights over
immovable property are acquired by ordinary
*Reconciling Article 559 with Article 1132, when can prescription through possession of ten years.
an owner who lost his movable be allowed to bring (1957a)
an action to recover any movable that he was ARTICLE 1135. In case the adverse claimant
unlawfully deprived of, 4 years if the person in possesses by mistake an area greater, or less, than
possession of that movable is in good faith, 8 years that expressed in his title, prescription shall be
if the person in possession of the movable is in bad based on the possession. (n)
faith.
What if the movable was acquired by another *Simply speaks of a situation where the one
person in a PUBLIC sale? What's the condition? The possessing an area has a title to the property he is in
owner must reimburse the person who acquired possession of, whether Torren’s title or Just title and
that thing in good faith, tapos yung binayaran niya he possesses property bigger than or smaller than
doon sa taong nakabili from the sale, sisilingan nya that stated in its title. In that case, his possession
sa unang nagbigay ng movable na yun doon sa over the excess will proceed to run from the time he
public sale. Because that person who stood to gain mistakenly possesses the excess. On the other hand,
when he gave or sold that movable into a public if less than the title he occupied other people can
sale. come in and possess that particular portion of the
It might sound unfair but really his cause of action is property which he did not possess subject of course
not against the third person, because that third to the rules of prescription.
person is presumed innocent. His cause of action
really should be against the person who benefited ARTICLE 1136. Possession in wartime, when the civil
from the public sale, meaning the one who gained courts are not open, shall not be counted in favor of
money by handling over that movable to the public the adverse claimant. (n)
sale.
ARTICLE 1137. Ownership and other real rights over
ARTICLE 1133. Movables possessed through a crime immovables also prescribe through uninterrupted
can never be acquired through prescription by the adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without
offender. (1956a) need of title or of good faith. (1959a)

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 26

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

Paragraph 3 is the rule with respect to the filing,

ARTICLE 1138. In the computation of time necessary when you file things in court or file pleadings in
for prescription the following rules shall be court. This is also the rule.
observed: Example: You are given a period of 15 days from
(1) The present possessor may complete the period January 2 then you exclude the first day which is
necessary for prescription by tacking his possession January 2 and you include the last day which is
to that of his grantor or predecessor in interest; January 17. (2+15=17)
(2) It is presumed that the present possessor who
was also the possessor at a previous time, has FUDALAN VS. OCIAL
continued to be in possession during the intervening Facts: Where the court found that the possession of
time, unless there is proof to the contrary; the Fudalans did not ripen into ownership because
(3) The first day shall be excluded and the last day they lack the requisite number of years as required
included. (1960a) under extraordinary prescription. The Fudalans
claimed that they have been occupying the property
*Paragraph 1 speaks of tacking of possession, since 1983 but they started exercising acts of
meaning adding the period of the predecessor to ownership in 1994.
the possession of the current owner. Tacking is only
allowed if there is privity of the relationship HELD:
between the predecessor and the successor as in In extraordinary prescription, ownership and other
the case of Succession, Donation, sale, barter and real rights over immovable property are acquired
etc. There's a mode of transfer. through uninterrupted adverse possession for 30
If intruder or trespasser and you only occupied the years even without need of title or of good faith.
land, tacking cannot be applied to you because of As observed by the trial court,
there is no mode of transfer, you took the property There was no mention of the predecessor parents of
by force or surreptitiously so there is no privity of Baldomera as one of the administrators which
relationship between the predecessor and would only fairly suggest that they were never in
successor. So tacking is not allowed in this instance. possession of the land. It was only in 1994 when
Flavio Fudalan came to be named as its
Paragraph 2 just says that there is a presumption of administrator per TD-93-009-00247 evidently after
continued possession if at 2 points in time the the execution of the blue paper receipt of P1,000.00
person who possess the property during the first by Teofredo and Teofista Fuderanan in their favor.
point in time is still in possession of the property at And it was only then that the Fudalans started
the second point in time. Unless there is proof paying taxes thereto, as shown by the numerous
otherwise that in fact the possession of that person receipts submitted. Thus, the parents of Baldomera
was interrupted in the middle of those 2 points of could not have paid taxes to the land before that
time. period for being not in actual possession of the land

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 27

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

contrary to their claim. It could be for this reason Even if timely raised, such argument of petitioners,
that defendants and intervenor agreed to buy the as well as with respect to extraordinary acquisitive
land from the heirs of Pedro and Ulpiano Fuderanan prescription, fails. "Prescription is one of the modes
to whom the land was adjudicated which act was of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code." There
tantamount to an abandonment of their claim. are two modes of prescription through which
Taking cue from the foregoing, Baldomera's alleged immovables may be acquired - ordinary acquisitive
possession could not have amounted to an prescription which requires possession in good faith
ownership by way of extraordinary acquisitive and just title for 10 years and, extraordinary
prescription. According to the factual findings of the prescription wherein ownership and other real
trial court, it was only in 1994 that her husband, rights over immovable property are acquired
Flavio was named administrator; that it was also through uninterrupted adverse possession for 30
then that they started paying taxes; and that it was years without need of title or of good faith.
also then that they started occupying the subject However, it was clarified in the Heirs of Mario
property. This observation of the trial court was Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines, that only
contrary to her assertion that they had been paying lands of the public domain subsequently classified
taxes and had been in possession of the land even or declared as no longer intended for public use or
before the said period. On this note, the thirty-year for the development of national wealth, or removed
period would only be completed in the year 2024. from the sphere of public dominion and are
Also, the records would reveal that as early as considered converted into patrimonial lands or
November 2001, her possession was effectively lands of private ownership, may be alienated or
interrupted when Spouses Ocial filed a complaint disposed through any of the modes of acquiring
before the barangay captain of Tangnan, Panglao, ownership under the Civil Code. And if the mode of
Bohol, where conciliation proceedings were held acquisition is prescription, whether ordinary or
although no settlement was reached. extraordinary, it must first be shown that the land
has already been converted to private ownership
*So, the SC said that we recon your period of prior to the requisite acquisitive prescriptive period.
possession only when in 1994, because that's only Otherwise, Article 1113 of the Civil Code, which
when you started possessing the property under the provides that property of the State not patrimonial
requirements of the Law. Which is open, in character shall not be the subject of prescription,
continuous, and exclusive possession. Their applies.
possession is clearly insufficient it would only have Sifting through petitioners' allegations, it appears
ripened into acquisitive prescription in 2024 that the subject property is an unregistered public
because this is Extraordinary Prescription. agricultural land. Thus, being a land of the public
domain, petitioners, in order to validly claim
ANDRES VS. STA LUCIA REALTY acquisition thereof through prescription, must first
HELD: be able to show that the State has - expressly
declared through either a law enacted by Congress

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 28

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

or a proclamation issued by the President that the Neither of the owners of Lots Nos. 2381 or 2386-A,
subject [property] is no longer retained for public in their respective deeds, transferred Lot No. 5005
service or the development of the national wealth to the petitioner; as already explained, Lot No. 5005
or that the property has been converted into was not part of either of the two lots. The petitioner
patrimonial. Consequently, without an express merely occupied the disputed strip of land believing
declaration by the State, the land remains to be a it to be included in the two lots it had acquired from
property of public dominion and hence, not Koo Jun Eng and the Garcia spouses. However, even
susceptible to acquisition by virtue of prescription. if it be conceded that the previous owners of the
In the absence of such proof of declaration in this other two lots possessed the disputed lot, their
case, petitioners' claim of ownership over the possession cannot be tacked to the possession of
subject property based on prescription necessarily the petitioner. The simple reason is that the
crumbles. Conversely, they cannot demand an possession of the said lot was not and could not
easement of right-of-way from respondent for lack have been transferred to the petitioner when it
of personality. acquired Lots Nos. 2381 and 2386-A because these
two lots did not include the third lot. Article 1138 of
*Here, it discusses prescription in relation to lands the Civil Code provides that —
of the public domain. In the previous cases that (1) The present possessor may complete the period
prescription does not run against the state with necessary for prescription by tacking his possession
respect to the lands of the public domain. Unless the to that of his grantor or predecessor- in interest.
person claiming ownership by prescription can However, tacking of possession is allowed only
prove that the land is no longer retained for public when there is a privity of contract or relationship
service or development of National Wealth or has between the previous and present possessors. In
been converted into Patrimonial Property. In this the absence of such privity, the possession of the
case there was no prescription even by the new occupant should be counted only from the time
extraordinary mode because even if you occupy the it actually began and cannot be lengthened by
property for 50 years if it’s not susceptible to connecting it with the possession of the former
prescription because of the fact that is a land of possessors. Thus it has been held:
public domain then your possession will never ripen A deed, in itself, creates no privity as to land outside
to acquisitive prescription. its calls. Nor is privity created by the bare taking of
possession of land previously occupied by the
SOUTH CITY HOMES, INC. VS. REPUBLIC grantor. It is therefore the rule, although sharply
FACTS: South City Homes which is claiming that the limited, that a deed does not of itself create privity
lot owners of Lots 2381 or 2366-A conveyed to them between the grantor and the grantee as to land not
Lot No. 5005. described in the deed but occupied by the grantor in
connection therewith, although the grantee enters
HELD: into possession of the land not described and uses it
in connection with that conveyed.

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 29

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

Where a grantor conveys a specific piece of

property, the grantee may not tack onto the period LIMCOMA MULTI-PURPOSE VS. REPUBLIC
of his holding of an additional piece of property the FACTS: Venustiano who was the odnee of the piece
period of his grantor's occupancy thereof to make of land through a donation executed by the spouses
up the statutory period. His grantor has not Andres and Trinidad, the previous possessors of the
conveyed such property or his interest therein, and property. The donation however was ruled to be
there is no privity. void but the possession was tacked because of the
fact that Venustiano is still a compulsory heir of the
*The SC said No, that was not the case because if Spouses Andres and Trinidad. In this case he was the
you look at the facts, Lot No. 5005 was not included compulsory heir of Andres and Trinidad so even if
in their respective lots of their predecessors in the donation was void he still was able to have the
interest so they could not tack possession to their property transferred to him through the mode of
predecessors in interest because how would they be donation. So there was still a mode of transfer which
able to tack possession if the predecessors in is succession. From the spouses Trinidad to
interest didn't even possess that particular land. Venustiano then transferred it to Limcoma
First, they could not tack possession because the Multipurpose.
predecessors didn't even possess the property. But
even assuming the possessors did possess the HELD:
property or the predecessors in interest did possess Article 1138 of the Civil Code provides:
the property. There was no privity or relationship Art. 1138. In the computation of time necessary for
created by the deed of sale. Because the property prescription, the following rules shall be observed:
being possessed wasn’t even described in the Deed (1) The present possessor may complete the period
of Sale that was used as the mode of transfer from necessary for prescription by tacking his possession
the Predecessor of interest to South City Homes. to that of his grantor or predecessor-in-interest.
(For there to be privity of relationship there has to While the supposed donation of the subject lot by
be a mode of transfer.) In this case there was no the Spouses Andres and Trinidad to Venustiano was
mode of transfer, so again there was no privity of not evidenced by a written instrument, the
relationship. The Deed could not have created relationship between them is not in dispute, i.e., the
privity over a property that wasn't a part of it. Since former were the progenitors of the latter. Even if
the Deed did not even describe Lot No. 5005. Then the donation was void, the tacking of possession
it could not have created privity of relationship must be allowed, considering the undisputed
between the predecessors in interest and South City relationship between the Spouses Andres and
Homes.10:37 (SORRY THERE'S A CAT AND MY DOG Trinidad, and Venustiano. We ruled in this wise in
IS FRIENDLY WITH CATS, PATI AKO INAAWAY NYA South City Homes, Inc. v. Republic.
AKO JOKE LANG) So that is what is meant by the To emphasize, Venustiano is a compulsory heir of
Italicized paragraph on the slide just in case you are the Spouses Andres and Trinidad. Intestate
having a difficult time understanding it. succession is another means by which ownership

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 30

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

and other real rights over property are transmitted. *This case is a good example of when tacking is
Effectively, upon his parents‘ death, ownership and applicable. Compulsory Heir in Succession are
real rights over the subject lot, including the right of individuals who have to inherit a portion of the
possession, were vested in Venustiano. estate of the decedent no matter what. The SC said
Consequently, upon his sale of the subject lot to the you can't tack possession because there was
petitioner, he transmitted his rights thereto. sufficient proof to show that there was privity of
Therefore, petitioner must be permitted to tack relationship between Venustiano and Spouses
possession of the subject lot to that of the Spouses Andres and Trinidad and Limcoma had just title over
Andres and Trinidad, and Venustiano. the property enabling it to acquire the said lot for 10
In any event, there appears to be no legal years.
impediment to petitioner‘s registrable right over the Where do good faith came from? Because
subject lot. We find that petitioner has consolidated Venustiano, the one who transferred the property
ownership thereof through ordinary acquisitive to Limcoma believe in good faith was valid. In this
prescription, specifically, good faith possession for case only ORDINARY PRESCRIPTION was required of
10 years. them and altogether the 10-year possession
Prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership. We requirement was in fact met.
have had occasion to rule in numerous instances
that open, exclusive, and continuous possession for
at least 30 years of alienable public land ipso jure NENITA QUALITY FOODS VS. GALABO
converts the same to private property. The FACTS: Galabo and others who owned a property in
conversion works to summon into operation Section Toril. Which Nenita allegedly forcibly entered with
14(2) of the Property Registration Decree which, in the assistance of the Army Policeman. Nenitas
turn, authorizes the acquisition of private lands argument is that they bought the property from
through prescription. Santos already and that its possession should be
In the case at bar, petitioner proved that its tacked from the supposed predecessor of the land.
predecessors-in-interest, the Spouses Andres and Nenita claims that Santos immediately occupied and
Trinidad, occupied and possessed the subject lot in possessed the land in 1972 and had it declared
the concept of owner for more than 30 years, 44 under his name for taxation purposes. They also said
years to be exact. Prescinding therefrom, the that he was granted free patent over the property
subject lot had already been converted to private by the Burue of Lands as demonstrated by the
property by 1968. Accordingly, when the petitioner issuance of the original Certificate Title No. P-4035
bought the lot from the Spouses Venustiano and in 1974.
Arsenia in 1991, under the belief, in good faith, that
they were the transferees of the original owners, it ISSUE: Should Nenita be allowed to tack its
only needed to complete the 10-year possession possession with that of Santos?
requirement for ordinary acquisitive prescription.
HELD: NO

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 31

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

First, on the reliance on the BOL letters and for possession. In this case, Nenita was wrong in
Certification and the CAs alleged disregard of NQFCs trying to prove that their possession should be
evidence. To prove prior physical possession of Lot tacked with their predecessors in interest. Because
No. 102, NQFC presented the Deed of Transfer, in Forcible Entry cases what is actually required is
Santos OCT P-4035, the Deed of Absolute Sale, and just really proof of entitlement to present physical
the Order of the Bureau of Lands approving Santos possession, not legal possession in the concept of an
free patent application. In presenting these pieces owner. More or less the defense of Nenita is
of evidence, NQFC is apparently mistaken as it may irrelevant to the forcible entry suit.
have equated possession that is at issue as an
attribute of ownership to actual possession. The Article 1139 – Article 1147
latter type of possession is, however, different from Action Prescriptive Period
and has different legal implications than the former. 8 years from the time the
While these documents may bear weight and are Actions to recover possession thereof is lost.
material in contests over ownership of Lot No. 102, movable (Art. 1140)
they do not per se show NQFCs actual possession of Real actions over
this property. immovables 30 years (Art. 1141)
To support its position, NQFC invokes the principle Mortgage Action 10 years (Art. 1142)
of tacking of possession, that is, when it bought Lot Demand right of
No. 102 from Santos on December 29, 2000, its way; bring an action
possession is, by operation of law, tacked to that of to abate a public or Does not prescribe (Art.
Santos and even earlier, or at the time Donato private nuisance 1143)
acquired Lot No. 102 in 1948. Actions upon:
NQFCs reliance on this principle is misplaced. True, a. written contract;
the law allows a present possessor to tack his b. obligation created 10 years from the time the
possession to that of his predecessor-in-interest to by law; right of action accrues
be deemed in possession of the property for the c. upon a judgement (Art. 1144)
period required by law. Possession in this regard,
Actions upon:
however, pertains to possession de jure and the
a. an oral contract;
tacking is made for the purpose of completing the
b. a quasi-contract 6 years (Art. 1145)
time required for acquiring or losing ownership
Actions upon:
through prescription. We reiterate possession in
a. an injury to the
forcible entry suits refers to nothing more than
rights of the plaintiff;
physical possession, not legal possession.
b. upon a quasi-
delict 4 years (Art. 1146)
*No, because Nenita had no legal title to the
Forcible entry,
property. The SC here said the case filed by the
unlawful detainer,
Galabos was not one for ownership but rather one
and defamation 1 year (Art. 1147)

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 32

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

asked to leave the property. So, the question

Article 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of becomes who between the lessor and the lesee has
time fixed by law. the better right to possess the property at a given
point in time considering that you have a lease
*Article 1139 provides us with the rule that actions contract and it’s not yet expired.
prescribe within the time fixed by law. Meaning, if Reinvindicatoria Example: If the question is who the
you have a cause of action and you do not bring that owner is really, then you need to file an action
right of action within the period provided by the law, Reinvindicatoria.
you can no longer bring an action after.
*Even if you were disposed of your property so long
For action to recover movables and actions to as within the 10 year period, you can still bring an
recover immovables take note that these periods action for accion publiciana.
refer only to Extraordinary Prescription. Because for What is the timeline? Not yet 1 year, you file an
movable if ordinary its only 4 years period to bring action for unlawful detainee or ejectment. Over 1
an action to recover if immovables then 10 years. year, Accion publiciana. Over 10 years, no right to
possession then prove ownership if you can unless
the other persons possession has already ripened
Article 1141. into acquisitive prescription after the lapse of 10
Accion Publiciana – action for recovery of the right years. Kasi kunwari if good faith sya nag occupy ng
to possess, to determine the better right of property.
possession of real property independent of the title These are procedures that will be clarified when you
or ownership. It is used to refer to an ejectment suit learned property and civil procedure. This is more or
filed after the expiration of one year from the less a preview of things to come. Just remember the
accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful prescriptive periods.
withholding of possession of the real property.
Right of Action
Accion Reinvindicatoria – action for recovery of The right of action accrues when there is a cause of
possession over the real property as owner action, which consists of three elements:
*Real right of possession is not lost until after the 1. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever
lapse of ten years. (Related under Article 555) means and under whatever law it arises or is
created;
*These two kinds of actions are actions involving 2. An obligation on the part of the defendant to
real property but the main distinction is Publiciana respect such right;
only refers to possession while Reinvindicatoria will 3. An act or omission on the part of such defendant
have to determine ownership already. violative of the right of the plaintiff.
Publiciana Example: If you are an occupant of a
property perhaps as a lessee and you are being

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 33

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

*What is a right of action? Because sabi natin kanina The Spouses Tarrosa argue that Maybanks right to
that actions prescribe in the time or rather in the foreclose on the mortgage had already prescribe
lapse of time fixed by law. since the total of 14 years had passed since they
The right of action refers to the action which you defaulted in their payments, is this correct?
may bring based on the right that was violated. That
right violated is called the cause of action consisting HELD: NO
of 3 elements. An action to enforce a right arising from a mortgage
Example: The right violated is your right to privacy should be enforced within ten (10) years from the
(this is element one) that is your cause of action. The time the right of action accrues, i.e., when the
right of action to bring is an action for damages. So mortgagor defaults in the payment of his obligation
that's the difference between a right of action and a to the mortgagee; otherwise, it will be barred by
cause of action. prescription and the mortgagee will lose his rights
Cause of action is the right violated and the right of under the mortgage. However, mere delinquency in
action is the action that you will bring or the kind of payment does not necessarily mean delay in the
suit that you will bring to enforce your cause of legal concept. To be in default is different from mere
action. delay in the grammatical sense, because it involves
the beginning of a special condition or status which
Article 1149. All other actions whose period are not has its own peculiar effects or results.
fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought In order that the debtor may be in default, it is
within five years from the time the right of action necessary that: (a) the obligation be demandable
accrues. and already liquidated; (b) the debtor delays
performance; and (c) the creditor requires the
*Article 1149 provides for a general period of 5 performance judicially or extrajudicially, unless
years, where the Civil Code or any other law does demand is not necessary - i.e., when there is an
not fix the time when the right of action accrues. express stipulation to that effect; where the law so
provides; when the period is the controlling motive
MAYBANK PHILIPPINES VS. TARROSA or the principal inducement for the creation of the
FACTS: The Spouses Tarrosa who have claimed a obligation; and where demand would be useless.
loan from Philippine Nationals Bank now Maybank Moreover, it is not sufficient that the law or
in 1984. They failed to payback the loan on time. So obligation fixes a date for performance; it must
in 1998, Maybank sent them a final demand for further state expressly that after the period lapses,
them to pay. When they offered an amount smaller default will commence. Thus, it is only when
than the actual amount loaned plus the interest, demand to pay is unnecessary in case of the
Maybank filed an action to foreclose on their real aforementioned circumstances, or when required,
property which at the time had been mortgaged by such demand is made and subsequently refused
the spouses Tarrosa as security for the loan. that the mortgagor can be considered in default and

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 34

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

the mortgagee obtains the right to file an action to 1994 and the Spouses Tarrosa failed to pay then,
collect the debt or foreclose the mortgage. that was the time the spouses were considered in
However, this provision merely articulated default and that was the time that Maybank’s right
Maybank's right to elect foreclosure upon Sps. of action accrued. So, Maybank foreclosed the
Tarrosa's failure or refusal to comply with the mortgage within the time given to them by the law.
obligation secured, which is one of the rights duly
accorded to mortgagees in a similar situation. In no BENTIR VS LEANDA
way did it affect the general parameters of default, FACTS: Leyte golf traders which filed a complaint for
particularly the need of prior demand under Article reformation of instruments, specific performance
1169 of the Civil Code, considering that it did not annulment of conditional sale, etc. against Yolanda
expressly declare: (a) that demand shall not be Roselio Bentir and the Spouses Pormada. Leyte golf
necessary in order that the mortgagor may be in traders says that they entered into contract of lease
default; or (b) that default shall commence upon of a parcel of land with Bentir for a period of 20
mere failure to pay on the maturity date of the loan. years, starting May 5, 1968. According to the
Hence, the CA erred in construing the above respondent corporation the lease was extended for
provision as one through which the parties had another 4 years or until May 31, 1992. In 1989,
dispensed with demand as a condition sine qua non petitioner Bentir sold the leased premises to the
for the accrual of Maybank's right to foreclose the Spouses Pormada. So, Leyte is saying that sale
real estate mortgage over the subject property, and should not have been made because it had the right
thereby, mistakenly reckoned such right from the of First Refussal pursuant to the contract.
maturity date of the loan on March 11, 1984. In the
absence of showing that demand is unnecessary for Q: When do you recon the right of action which is
the loan obligation to become due and demandable, for reformation, is it from 1968 when the contract
Maybank's right to foreclose the real estate was executed or is it in 1988 when the contract
mortgage accrued only after the lapse of the period expired?
indicated in its final demand letter for Sps. Tarrosa
to pay, i.e., after the lapse of five (5) days from HELD: in 1968.
receipt of the final demand letter dated March 4, First, if, according to respondent corporation, there
1998. Consequently, both the CA and the RTC was an agreement between the parties to extend
committed reversible error in declaring that the lease contract for four (4) years after the original
Maybank's right to foreclose the real estate contract expired in 1988, then Art. 1670 would not
mortgage had already prescribed. apply as this provision speaks of an implied new
lease (tacita reconduccion) where at the end of the
*The SC said NO because the obligation incurred by contract, the lessee continues to enjoy the thing
Tarossa was one that required a demand in order for leased "with the acquiescence of the lessor", so that
them to be in default. This is also another concept the duration of the lease is "not for the period of the
you will learn later. Since demand was made only in original contract, but for the time established in

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 35

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

Article 1682 and 1687." In other words, if the ARTICLE 1152. The period for prescription of actions
extended period of lease was expressly agreed upon to demand the fulfillment of obligation declared by
by the parties, then the term should be exactly what a judgment commences from the time the judgment
the parties stipulated, not more, not less. Second, became final. (1971)
even if the supposed 4-year extended lease be ARTICLE 1153. The period for prescription of actions
considered as an implied new lease under Art. 1670, to demand accounting runs from the day the
"the other terms of the original contract" persons who should render the same cease in their
contemplated in said provision are only those terms functions.
which are germane to the lessees right of continued The period for the action arising from the result of
enjoyment of the property leased.15 The the accounting runs from the date when said result
prescriptive period of ten (10) years provided for in was recognized by agreement of the interested
Art. 1144 applies by operation of law, not by the will parties. (1972)
of the parties. Therefore, the right of action for ARTICLE 1154. The period during which the obligee
reformation accrued from the date of execution of was prevented by a fortuitous event from enforcing
the contract of lease in 1968. his right is not reckoned against him. (n)
ARTICLE 1155. The prescription of actions is
*In 1968 because the SC said if it is right what is interrupted when they are filed before the court,
written in the contract that there is extension ng 4 when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the
years from the time of expiry, upon the execution of creditors, and when there is any written
the contract itself Leyte should have been able to acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. (1973a)
identify that the contract was in fact not
representative of their true intentions. So, their 10 *1155 provides for when prescription is interrupted.
years to question the contract run from the time the *In Republic vs Banez we see how a written
contract was executed in 1968 because that was the acknowledgement interrupts such prescription and
time when their cause of action arose. how we should compute the period again once
prescription has been interrupted. To clarify what
RULES ON COMPUTATION kind of prescription is interrupted in 1155, because
ARTICLE 1150. The time for prescription for all kinds if you remember earlier, we also discussed
of actions, when there is no special provision which interruption of prescription through natural or civil
ordains otherwise, shall be counted from the day means.
they may be brought. (1969) How is this particular article different from articles
ARTICLE 1151. The time for the prescription of 1120 to 1125 which we earlier discussed?
actions which have for their object the enforcement
of obligations to pay principal with interest or ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION VS. EXTINCTIVE
annuity runs from the last payment of the annuity PRESCRIPTION
or of the interest. (1970a) There are two kinds of prescription provided in the
Civil Code. One is acquisitive, that is, the acquisition

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 36

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

of a right by the lapse of time as expounded in par. Sale. The Banez's failed to fulfill their end of the
1, Article 1106. Other names for acquisitive contract, so CRC send a demand letter in 1991 to ask
prescription are adverse possession and for them to fulfill their end of contract. What
usucapcion. The other kind is extinctive prescription happened to the prescriptive period to bring an
whereby rights and actions are lost by the lapse of action on the part of CRC?
time as defined in Article 1106 and par. 2, Article
1139. Another name for extinctive prescription is HELD:
litigation of action. These two kinds of prescription The accrual of the cause of action to demand the
should not be interchanged. titling of the land cannot be earlier than 15 August
Article 1155 of the New Civil Code refers to the 1984. So that, the petitioner can sue on the contract
interruption of prescription of actions. Interruption until 15 August 1994. Prior to the expiration of the
of acquisitive prescription, on the other hand, is aforesaid period, the petitioner sent a demand
found in Articles 1120-1125 of the same code. letter to Hojilla dated 29 May 1991. A few months
(Virtucio vs. Alegarbes, G.R. No. 187451) thereafter, petitioner sent another demand letter to
Hojilla dated 24 October 1991. The prescriptive
*Make sure to differentiate between what period was interrupted on 29 May 1991.The
interrupts acquisitive prescription and extinctive consequence is stated in Article 1155 of the Civil
prescription. If acquisitive prescription were talking Code. It states, "[t]he prescription of actions is
about the prescription that ripens into ownership interrupted when they are filed before the court,
that can be interrupted through natural and civil when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the
interruption. In extinctive were talking when your creditors, and when there is any written
period to bring a right of action will lapse. acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor."
Unlike 1120-1125, 1155 refers to the interruption of Following the law, the new ten-year period for the
extinctive prescription, meaning it stops the period filing of a case by the petitioner should be counted
for you to bring an action from running. from 29 May 1991, ending on 29 May 2001. The
complaint at bar was filed on 10 April 2000, well
REPUBLIC VS. BANEZ within the required period.
FACTS: Antonio Banez, Louisita Vallera and Nena Notably, before the expiration of the new
Hojilla who offered for sale of parcel of land in Abra prescriptive period, the petitioner again sent a new
to CRC. Pursuant to the offer to sell in 1981, Banez demand letter on 6 July 1999, which again caused
and others executed a letter agreement irrevocably the same to run anew, which will expire on 6 July
giving CRC the option to purchase the subject 2009. The complaint filed on 10 April 2000 was
property which CRC accepted and which agreement timely.
was acknowledged by Hojilia in 1984 where they
affirmed their undertaking that they will claim full *Unlike acquisitive prescription, when an
payment of the property upon presentation of a interruption is made in the period for extinctive
clean title and the execution of the absolute Deed of prescription the period starts to run anew it is not

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 37

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

tacked. You cannot continue were you left off. In the present case because the action filed by
this case for extinctive prescription the period when petitioner before the trial court was 1) for
interrupted runs anew. reconveyance based on fraud since the ownership
of private respondents over the questioned
GATMAYTAN VS. MISIBIS LAND property was allegedly established on "false
FACTS: The Gatmaytans purchased from the assertions, misrepresentations and deceptive
Spouses Garcia a parcel of Land in Misibis. With the allegations" x x x; and 2) for rescission of the
transfer certificate of title registered in the name of "Kasulatan ng Pagmamana at Paghahati x x x." x x x
the spouses Garcia together with the Deed of On the other hand, in Daclag v. Macahilig, we
Absolute sale the Gatmaytans attempted toregister rejected the claim of petitioners that prescription is
the land in their name only for them to found out applicable because the action was based on fraud.
that Misibis land had already processed the transfer We ruled that the action was not subject to
of such property together with the adjoining lots. prescription because it was, in fact, based on a deed
The Gatmaytans filed a complaint for declaration of of sale that was null and void.
nullity of the title or in alternative quieting of title. What is then the applicable period in Petitioners'
Now Misibis land claims among others that action for reconveyance? Being based on the
Gatmaytans right of Action had already prescribed allegation of nullity of the 1996 DOAS in favor of
since an action for reconveyance prescribes 10 years DAA Realty, said action should be deemed
after the issuance of the title in favor of the imprescriptible.
defrauder. Since the title was isssued in 1996 , it
should be within 10 years from the issuance of the *Since the cause of action was based on the nullity
title should be reconned the 10 year period? of the 1996 Deed of Absolute sale, the same is
deemed imprescriptible. Because the Deed of
HELD: Absolute Sale was void for being absolutely a
Whether an action for reconveyance prescribes or forgery. An action to declare a contract void is in fact
not is therefore determined by the nature of the imprescriptible, so the 10-year period is not applied.
action, that is, whether it is founded on a claim of Misibis shows us an exception to the rule that an
the existence of an implied or constructive trust, or action over an immovable prescribes in 10 years
one based on the existence of a void or inexistent except if the cause action arises from a void
contract. This is evident in several of our past contract. Because then the cause of action becomes
decisions. In Casipit v. Court of Appeals, we rejected imprescriptible.
the claim of imprescriptibility and applied the 10-
year prescription where the action filed was based AINZA VS. PADUA
on fraud: FACTS: Concepcion Ainza who alleged that the
There is no dispute that an action for reconveyance Spouses Eugenia and Antonio Padua owned a
based on a void contract is imprescriptible x x x. property in Quezon City. Half of which she bought
However, We simply cannot apply this principle to sometime in April 1987 from Eugenia and the

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 38

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

latter’s husband Antonio for 100,000 pesos. There In sum, the sale of the conjugal property by Eugenia
was no Deed of Absolute sale executed to evidence without the consent of her husband is voidable. It is
the transaction, but the cash payment was received binding unless annulled. Antonio failed to exercise
by Concepcion. Concepcion authorized Natividad his right to ask for the annulment within the
and the latter’s husband Seferino Tulyaw to occupy prescribed period, hence, he is now barred from
the premises and make improvements on the questioning the validity of the sale between his wife
unfinished building. Thereafter Concepcion alleged and Concepcion.
that without her consent the spouses Eugenia
caused the subdivision of the property into 3 *The prescriptive period here is 6 years from the
portions and registered it under their names under time the right of action accrued. This is an example
different titles in violation of the restriction of a cause of action that has already prescribed by
annotated in the back of the title. She brought an the lapse of time.
action to recover the property. Was there a valid
sale between Concepcion and Eugenia? (If you MONTERO VS. TIMES TRANSPORTATION
remember in your persons the sale of conjugal FACTS: Petitioners filed an illegal dismissal case. The
property will need the consent of both spouses to prescriptive period of which is 4 years, they were
be valid, if not under the civil code the sale is ilegally dismissed in 1997 and then they filed a
voidable but under the FC the sale will be void, HERE complaint in 1998 and they withdrew the case on
Civil code is applicable) their own in 1999. They filed another complaint in
2002.
HELD:
The contract of sale between Eugenia and Q: Should the time between 1998 and 1999,
Concepcion being an oral contract, the action to meaning the time when the complaint was pending
annul the same must be commenced within six not be counted in determining whether there cause
years from the time the right of action accrued. of action had already prescribe?
Eugenia sold the property in April 1987 hence
Antonio should have asked the courts to annul the HELD:NO
sale on or before April 1993. No action was The petitioners contend that the period when they
commenced by Antonio to annul the sale, hence his filed a labor case on May 14, 1998 but withdrawn on
right to seek its annulment was extinguished by March 22, 1999 should be excluded from the
prescription. computation of the four-year prescriptive period for
Even assuming that the ten (10)-year prescriptive illegal dismissal cases. However, the Court had
period under Art. 173 should apply, Antonio is still already ruled that the prescriptive period continues
barred from instituting an action to annul the sale even after the withdrawal of the case as though no
because since April 1987, more than ten (10) years action has been filed at all. The applicability of
had already lapsed without any such action being Article 1155 of the Civil Code in labor cases was
filed. upheld in the case of Intercontinental Broadcasting

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 39

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

Corporation v. Panganiban where the Court held the running of the prescriptive period. The
that "although the commencement of a civil action subsequent withdrawal of the same had the effect
stops the running of the statute of prescription or of making it appear as tho no action has been filed
limitations, its dismissal or voluntary abandonment at all. Dapat 2001 nila finile nila pa rin yung
by plaintiff leaves the parties in exactly the same complaint because thats 4 years from. 1997. But
position as though no action had been commenced since they filed it in 2002 which is 5 years after the
at all." cause of action accrued their action is already
In like manner, while the filing of the complaint for barred by prescription.
illegal dismissal before the LA interrupted the
running of the prescriptive period, its voluntary
withdrawal left the petitioners in exactly the same OVERSEAS BANK OF MANILA VS. GERALDEZ
position as though no complaint had been filed at FACTS: Valanton and Juan who obtained from
all. The withdrawal of their complaint effectively Overseas credit accommodation of 150,000 pesos,
erased the tolling of the reglementary period. this was secured by a Chattel mortgage. Written
A prudent review of the antecedents of the claim extrajudicial demands were made by Overseas Bank
reveals that it has in fact prescribed due to the in 1968,1975 anf 1976 but Valanton and Juan
petitioners‘ withdrawal of their labor case docketed refused to pay on the ground that their obligation
as NLRC RAB-I-01-1007. Hence, while the filing of was assumed by a third party. The bank alleged that
the said case could have interrupted the running of the supposed assumption of obligation was made
the four-year prescriptive period, the voluntary without its consent. In dismissing the complain the
withdrawal of the petitioners effectively cancelled Trial court reasoned out that because the banks
the tolling of the prescriptive period within which to cause of action accrued in 1966 which was the date
file their illegal dismissal case, leaving them in of the Managers Check for 150,000 was issued by
exactly the same position as though no labor case the Overseas bank to the Republic Bank and as the
had been filed at all. The running of the four-year complaint was filed on October 1976 or more than
prescriptive period not having been interrupted by 10 years from the accrual of the cause of action. The
the filing of NLRC RAB-I-01-1007, the petitioners‘ complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.
cause of action had already prescribed in four years As to the interruption of the 10-year period via a
after their cessation of employment on October 26, written extrajudicial demand the trial court that a
1997 and November 24, 1997. Consequently, when demand letter only tolls or suspends the
the petitioners filed their complaint for illegal prescriptive period for the period of time indicated
dismissal, separation pay, retirement benefits, and in the letter within which payment should be made
damages in 2002, their claim, clearly, had already and prescription commences to run again after the
been barred by prescription. expiration of the period and no payment was made.
Was this interpretation of the law by the trial court,
*It should be counted still, because while it is true correct?
that the filing of the complaint in 1998 is suspended

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 40

 OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

HELD: NO *You might as the question why is the reading like

We hold that the lower court erred in holding that this in the Overseas Bank of Manila and why is the
each of the demand letters suspended the ruling in the Montero vs Times transportation.
prescriptive period for one day only. The Because in Montero vs Times Transportation they
interruption of the prescriptive period by written are under 1155 naman na interruption is also
extrajudicial demand means that the said period brought about by the filing of an action in court. But
would commence anew from the receipt of the if you look at the distinction between the causes it’s
demand. That is the correct meaning of interruption that in Montero there was a withdrawal of the
as distinguished from mere suspension or tolling of action. So, you need to remember that the
the prescriptive period. specifically the SC said voluntary withdrawal of the
An action upon a written contract must be brought complaint filed without any effect that the case may
within ten years from the time the right of action have had in tolling the prescriptive period. So, it is if
accrues (Art. 1144[1], Civil Code). "The prescription the case was never filed in the first place.
of actions is interrupted when they are filed before
the court, when there is a written extrajudicial
demand by the creditors, and when there is any
written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor"
(Art. 1155, Ibid, applied in Gonzalo Puyat & Sons,
Inc. v. City of Manila, 117 Phil. 985, 993; Philippine
National Bank v. Fernandez, L-20086, July 10, 1967,
20 SCRA 645, 648; Harden v. Harden, L-22174, July
21, 1967, 20 SCRA 706, 711).
Interruption of the prescription of actions by means
of a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor is
a rule of civil law origin. Article 1973 of the old Civil
Code, from which article 1155 was taken, provides
that "la prescripcion de las acciones se interrumpe
por su ejercicio ante los Tribunales, por reclamacion
extrajudicial del acreedor y por cualquier acto de
reconocimiento de la deuda por el deudor." Article
1155 specifies that the extrajudicial demand and the
acknowledgment should be in writing. A written
extrajudicial demand wipes out the period that has
already elapsed and starts anew the prescriptive
period.

FROM THE DISCUSSIONS OF ATTY. EMIKO ESCOVILLA 41