CASE DIGEST: Escritor v. Intermediate Appellate Court

 


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