Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Godinez v CA

Felix Bergado owned Lot 655. His seven children inherited it.

1929 - Judge Pablo ordered the registration of the lot in the names of
the children. Stating a share of 1/6 instead of 1/7. Due to the clerical
error, no decree was issued and the land remained unregistered.

children of Bergado. The heirs of Bergado then sold and reconveyed


Lot 655A to the petitioners (Godinez & Jayme)
1970 - Igot brothers sued some Bergado heirs due to that
reconveyance made because they were already in the possession of
such lot since the sale of the heirs to Magsumbol then from
Magsumbol to Igots.

2/7 of the lot pertaining to Macario and Vicente Bergado were


sold to Patalinghung
5/7 share of the other 5 children were sold and transferred in
1929 and 1930 to Spouses Magsumbol. (Take note, the sellers,
Bergado's children, weren't the real owner yet because the land
remained unregistered during the sale.)

TC ruled in favor of Igot brothers, which was affirmed by the CA.


CA held that the Magsumbols acquired Lot 655A by
prescription. And such right was transmitted to Igots (private
respondents) under Sec 41 of Civil Procedure

1934- the lot was subdivided w/ approval of the Director of Lands into
Lot 655-A and Lot 655-B

Petitioners (Godinez) acquired only a paper title in 1967 when


OCT No. 8 was obtained.
Petitioners contend that CA erred in not considering that the
action of Igorots is barred by res judicata.

So, the Bergado heirs ceased to have possession of the whole


Lot 655 (because they already transferred it to Magsumbol
spouses and Patilinghung)

1962 - The heirs of Magsumbol upon having inherited the land, sold
Lot 655A to private respondents Igot. So Igot continued the
Magsumbol's possession of the lot.
1967 - Judge Mendoza corrected the clerical errors in Judge Pablo's
decision. So a decree was issued. OCT No. 8 was issued for Lot 655
and the land finally became registered under the names of those 7

Issue: W/N the Igots have acquired the Lot through prescription?
Held:
Yes. Lot 655A has been in adverse, continuous, uninterrupted
and notorious possession of the Magsumbols and Igots in the
concept of owner for more than half a century (more than 50
years).
And such OCT No. 8 rendered by Justice Mendoza did not
nullify the sales made by the 5 Bergado children to Magsumbol
spouses in 1929 and 1930.
Doctrine:

Where a property is in the possession of a person that is: in the


concept of an owner, public, peaceful, continuous, and
uninterrupted for a period of time required for acquiring a
property, the property is already acquired by the possessor

through prescription. Therefore, the claim over such property


has already prescribed.