MIGUEL
ESCRITOR, JR., ANGEL ESCRITOR, RAMON ESCRITOR, JUANA ESCRITOR, CONCORDIA
ESCRITOR, IRENE ESCRITOR, HEIRS OF LUIS ESCRITOR, represented by RUPERTO
ESCRITOR, HEIRS OF PEDO ESCRITOR, represented by SUSANA VILLAMENA, LINA
ESCRITOR, WNEDELINA ESCRITOR, ALFREDO ESCRITOR, SUSANA ESCRITOR and CARMEN
ESCRITOR, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and SIMEON ACUNA,
respondents
G.R. No. L-71283 | November
12, 1987
FACTS:
Lot No.
2749, located at Atimonan, Quezon, was the subject of cadastral proceedings in
which Miguel Escritor filed an answer to as claimant, declaring his ownership
over the lot alleging that he acquired it by inheritance from his deceased
father.
On May 15,1958,
the Court rendered a decision in the adjudicating the lot with its improvements
in favor of claimant Escritor and confirming his title thereto. Immediately
thereafter, Escritor took possession of the property.
On August 2,
1958, respondent Simeon S. Acuna filed a petition for review alleging Escritor
of fraud and misrepresentation. Thirteen years later, the Court adjudicated Lot
No. 2749 in favor of respondent Acuna and ordered petitioners to vacate the
land. A writ of possession was later issued and petitioners voluntarily gave up
their possession.
More than 4
years later, respondent Acuna filed a complaint for recovery of damages against
petitioners for the fruits of Lot No. 2749 which was allegedly possessed by the
latter unlawfully for thirteen years. According to respondent Acuna, the
registration of the said lot was effectuated by the deceased claimant Escritor
through fraud, malice, and misrepresentation. The lower court, however,
rendered a decision dismissing Acuna’s complaint for damages, finding that
though petitioners enjoyed the fruits of the property, they were in good faith,
possessing under a just title, and the cause of action, if there was any, has
already prescribed.
On Appeal to
the Intermediate Appellate Court, the judgment of the lower court was reversed.
Contrary to
the finding of the trial court, the Intermediate Appellate Court made the
pronouncement that petitioners were possessors in bad faith from 1958 up to
1971 and should be held accountable for damages. This conclusion was based on
the statement of the cadastral court in its decision, readjudicating Lot No.
2749 to respondent Simeon Acuna, that “Miguel Escritor forcibly took possession
of the land in May, 1958, and benefited from the coconut trees thereon.” The
Intermediate Appellate Court observed that on the basis of the unimpeached conclusion
of the cadastral court, it must be that the petitioners have wrongfully entered
possession of the land. The Intermediate Appellate Court further explains that
as such possessors in bad faith, petitioners must reimburse respondent Acuna
for the fruits of the land they had received during their possession.
ISSUE:
Whether or
not petitioners should be held liable for damages
RULING:
It should be
remembered that in the first decision of the cadastral court Lot No. 2749 was
adjudicated in favor of claimant Escritor. In this decision, the said court
found to its satisfaction that claimant Escritor acquired the land by
inheritance from his father who in turn acquired it by purchase, and that his
open, public, continuous, adverse, exclusive and notorious possession dated
back to the Filipino-Spanish Revolution. Significantly, nowhere during the entire
cadastral proceeding did anything come up to suggest that the land belonged to
any person other than Escritor.
On the basis
of the aforementioned favorable judgment, Escritor honestly believed that he is
the legal owner of the land. With this well- grounded belief of ownership, he
continued in his possession of Lot No. 2749. This cannot be categorized as
possession in bad faith.
As defined
in the law, a possessor in bad faith is one in possession of property knowing that
his title thereto is defective. Here, there is no showing that Escritor knew of
any flaw in his title.
Nor was it
proved that petitioners were aware that the title of their predecessor had any
defect.
Nevertheless,
assuming that claimant Escritor was a possessor in bad faith, this should not
prejudice his successorsin-interest, petitioners herein, as the rule is that
only personal knowledge of the flaw in one’s title or mode of acquisition can
make him a possessor in bad faith, for bad faith is not transmissible from one
person to another, not even to an heir. As Article 534 of the Civil Code
explicitly provides, “one who succeeds by hereditary title shall not suffer the
consequences of the wrongful possession of the decedent, if it is not shown
that he was aware of the flaws affecting it; x x x.” The reason for this
article is that bad faith is personal and intransmissible. Its effects must,
therefore, be suffered only by the person who acted in bad faith; his heir
should not be saddled with such consequences.
Under
Article 527 of the Civil Code, good faith is always presumed, and upon him who
alleges bad faith on the part of a possessor rests the burden of proof. If no
evidence is presented proving bad faith, like in this case, the presumption of
good faith remains.
Comments
Post a Comment