TodayisFriday,June24,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.81401May18,1990
VIRGINIAFRANCOVDA.DEARCEO,CARMELITAARCEO,ZENAIDAARCEO,ROMEOARCEO,RODOLFO
ARCEOandMANUELARCEO,petitioners,
vs.
HON.COURTOFAPPEALS(Former16thDivision),PEDROM.ARCEO,SOTERAARCEO,LORENZO
ARCEO,andANTONIOARCEO,respondents.
RicardoS.IntonandJoseF.Tiburcioforpetitioners.
HerminE.Arceoforprivaterespondents.

SARMIENTO,J.:
TheCourtgrantsthispetitiononasuccessfuldemonstrationoferrorcommittedbytheCourtofAppeals.1
It appears that the spouses Abdon Arceo and Escolastica Geronimo were the owners of four parcels of
unregisteredland(sixwereinvolvedbutonlyfourweredisputed)locatedinPulilan,Bulacan,identifiedaslotsnos.
2582,2595,3054,and8131.EscolasticadiedonSeptember16,1942whileAbdonpassedawayin1953.They
had one son, Esteban, who died on September 2, 1941. Esteban had five children, Jose, Pedro, Lorenzo,
Antonio, and Sotera. Jose married Virginia Franco, with whom he fathered six children, Carmelita, Zenaida,
Rodolfo, Manuel, Cesar, and Romeo. 2 Pedro, Lorenzo, Antonio, and Sotera are the private respondents herein while
Jose'swidow,Virginia(JosediedonMarch8,1970),andtheirchildrenarethepetitioners.

It also appears that on October (or September) 27, 1941, the Arceos executed a deed of donation inter vivos,
markedasExhibit"J",inwhichthespousesbestowedthepropertiesinfavorofJose. 3Since1942,Josehadbeen
payingtaxesthereon.4In1949,hetookpersonalpossessionthereof,workedthereon,andclaimedthemasownerthereof5

It furthermore appears that on August 2, 1950, the spouses executed another deed of donation inter vivos,
markedasexhibit"T"disposingofthepropertiesfurtherinfavorofJose.6
OnOctober3(or30),1941,theArceossupposedlysignedadeedofdonationmortiscausa, marked as exhibit
"1"revokingexhibit"J"andgivingawaythepropertiesinquestioninfavorofallhisgrandchildrenincludingJose.
ItseemshoweverthatitwasnotarizedonlyonNovember3,1944,afterEscolasticahaddied.
On January 12, 1972, Virginia, together with her children, filed with the cadastral court 7 an application for
registrationintheirnamesoflotsNos.2582,2595,3054,and8131onthestrengthofexhibits"J"and"T".Pedro,Antonio,
Lorenzo, and Sotera opposed the application on the basis of exhibit "1". Pedro and Lorenzo specifically contested the
applicationonlotsNos.3054and8131onclaimsthateachofthemwereentitledtoonethirdthereof.8

Thecadastralcourtrejectedallthreedocumentsanddistributedthepropertiesaccordingtothelawonintestate
succession.9
VirginiaandherchildrenshortlywenttotheCourtofAppealswhichaffirmedthedecisionofthecadastralcourt
anddismissedtheappeal.
OnFebruary15,1988,Virginia,etal.petitionedthisCourt.
The petitioners argue that the cadastral court was bereft of the power to determine conflicting claims of

ownership,andthatitsauthoritywassolelytoconfirmanexistingtitle,andthatanyway,allthelotsshouldhave
been awarded to them by virtue of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since 1941 (1942,
whenJosetookpossessionoftheparcels)orotherwise,byacquisitiveprescription.10Theyalsoassertthatexhibits
"J"and"T"hadvalidlytransferredthesubjectlandstothem.

In their comment, Pedro, Lorenzo, Antonio, and Sotera contend that the cadastral court had the jurisdiction to
decide questions of ownership of property that the issue of prescription was never ventilated below and that
exhibit"J"hadbeenvalidlyrescindedbyexhibit"1".
Thepartiesdonotquarreloverthegenuinenessofallthreeexhibitsbutrather,overthedatesthereof.Pedro,et
al.allegedthatexhibit"J"wasexecutedonSeptember27,1941,andnotOctober27,1941,andthatexhibit"l",
theinstrumentthatrevokedit,camelater,oronOctober3,1941.Virginiaetal.maintainontheotherhandthat
exhibit "J' was actually made on October 27, 1941, twentyfour days after the execution of exhibit "1", and that
assumingexhibit"1"cameearlier,itwasnotarized,andtookeffect,onlyonNovember3,1944,afterthedeathof
Escolastica,oneofthedonors.
Althoughthepartieswrangleoverdates,theCourtobservesthatthereisnorealquestionoffacttoberesolvedin
this case. The important question, so we find, is, based on existing facts, legal in character: Who has the right
overlotsNos.2582,2595,3054,and8131?
Asweindicated,wefindmeritinthispetition.
Thefirstquestionmust,however,beresolvedagainstthepetitioners.WehaveheldthatunderSection2ofthe
PropertyRegistrationDecree,thejurisdictionoftheRegionalTrialCourt,sittingasalandregistrationcourt,isno
longerascircumscribedasitwasunderActNo.496,theformerlandregistrationlaw. 11 We said that the Decree
"has eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the limited jurisdiction
conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely as a cadastral court." The amendment was "aimed at avoiding
multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified registration proceedings by conferring upon the required trial courts the
authoritytoactnotonlyonapplicationsfor'originalregistration''butalso'overallpetitionsfiledafteroriginalregistrationof
title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising from such applications or petitions.'" 12 At any rate, we have
alsostatedthatthelimitedjurisdictionrulegoverninglandregistrationcourtsissubjecttorecognizedexceptions,towit,(1)
where the parties mutually agreed or have acquiesced in submitting controversial issues for determination (2) where they
havebeengivenfullopportunitytopresenttheirevidenceand(3)wherethecourthasconsideredtheevidencealreadyof
recordandisconvincedthatthesameissufficientforrenderingadecisionuponsuchcontroversialissues. 13Bythesame
token,ithasbeenheldthattheruleisnot,inreality,oneofjurisdiction,butrather,ofmereprocedure,whichmaybewaived.
14Itisnotamisstostatelikewisethatwheretheissue,say,ofownership,isineluctablytiedupwiththequestionofrightof
registration,thecadastralcourtcommitsnoerrorinassumingjurisdictionoverit,as,forinstance,inthiscase,whereboth
parties rely on their respective exhibits to defeat one another's claims over the parcels sought to be registered, in which
case,registrationwouldnotbepossibleorwouldbeundulyprolongedunlessthecourtfirstdecidedit.

Thenextquestionreferstoacquisitiveprescription.Insupportoftheirclaims,Virginia,etal.citefourevents:(1)In
1941, Jose entered upon the properties and until his death in 1970, worked thereon (2) Upon his death, they,
Virginia,etal.,dividedthesamebyvirtueofanextrajudicialpartition(3)Eversince,Josehadpaidtaxesthereon
untilhedied(4)Pedro,etal.,havenotliftedafingertoousthim,Jose,inpossession,orotherwise,toimpugnhis
right. Virginia, et al. now say that barring the above exhibits, they have anyway acquired the parcels by
prescription.
Wealsoregretthatonecannotagreewiththisproposition.Thepetitionerssupposethattheparcels'hadcome
underthecategoryofacoownership,followingthedeathoftheirgrandparents,butinthatcase,ithasbeenheld
thatinorderforprescriptiontosetin,thefollowingrequisitesmustconcur:(1)thereisaclearshowingthatthe
claimant has repudiated the coownership (2) he has made known to the rest of the coowners that he is
assumingexclusiveownershipovertheproperty(3)thereisclearandconvincingevidencethereofand(4)his
possessionisopen,continuous,exclusive,andnotorious.15
The evidence for Virginia et al. do not persuade us that they (through Jose) have acquired the lots by lapse of
time.Thefactthatin1941,Josewrestedpossessionthereof,sowehold,doesnotamounttoadversepossession
becauseasacoowner,hehadtherightofenjoyment,andhisusethereofcannotbyitselfprejudicetherightof
hisfellowcoowners.Thefactthathepaidtaxesthereonisnotcontrollingeitherbecausepaymentofrealestate
taxes does not necessarily confer title upon a claimant. 16 The fact finally that Virginia, et al. had sought to
extrajudiciallydividethepropertyisnothingconclusivebecausethereisnoshowingthatthey,Virginia,etal.hadmadethis
knowntoPedro,etal.Underthesecircumstances,wecannotvalidlysaythatthelandshaddevolvedonVirginia.,etal.,by
wayofprescription.

We are granting the petition nonetheless on the finding that the lots had been conferred to Jose by a valid
donationintervivos,thatis,exhibit"J".
OtherthantheclaimsbyPedro,etal.,thatexhibit"J"hadbeenrevokedbyexhibit"1",exhibit"J"appearstohave

beenexecutedincompliancewithlegalrequirements,i.e.,astoformandacceptance.17Itistruethatthecadastral
courtwassupposedtohaveattributedfraudonthepartofJoseinmakingAbdonsigntheexhibit, 18 (according to Pedro,
Abdon affixed his signature thereon upon "the belief that it was a deed of sale of the land purchased from one Marciano
Santos"19)butasfoundbytheCourtofAppeals,Itisatheorythat"mustbereceivedwitha'grainofsalt', 20because,for
onething,Joseisdead,andforanother,thepetitionershaveadducedevidencethatexhibit"J"wasgenuine.Wearebound
bythefactualfindingoftheAppellateCourtandasweaverred,wearedisposingofthisquestiononpurequestionsoflaw.

Astoexhibit"T",thefindingoftheCourtofAppealsthatitwasdefectiveisjustascontrollingonthisCourt,thatis,
that"itwassignedbyAbdonArceoafterthedeathofhiswifeonSeptember16,1942anddoesnotcontainthe
acceptance...byJoseArceo."21
We can not say that exhibit "1" had validly revoked exhibit "J". The weight of authority is that a valid donation,
onceaccepted,becomes
irrevocable, 22 except on account of officiousness, 23 failure by the donee to comply with charges imposed in the
donation, 24 or by reason of ingratitude. 25 There is simply no proof that Abdon when he executed exhibit "1", was in
possessionofalegalgroundforannulment.

WecannotthusaccepttheCourtofAppeals'holdingthatexhibit"1"had"neutralizedtheforceandeffect" 26 of
exhibit"J".

It is therefore this Court's ruling that the disposition under exhibit "J" in favor of Jose (whose rights were
transmittedtoVirginia,etal.)shouldberespected.
Wefindnoneedinsettlingtheissueoftruedatesoftheparties'exhibits,becausefirst,itisanissueoffactand
second,becausewhatevertheirtruedates,thereisnoobstacletothevalidityoftheclaimsofVirginia,etal.
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is SET ASIDE. The court a quo is ORDERED to distribute the
propertiescoveredbythedonationintervivos,datedOctober(orSeptember)27,1941,exhibit"J",accordingto
thetermsandconditionssetforththerein,andintheproportionsindicatedthereby.Nocosts.
ITISSOORDERED.
MelencioHerreraParas,PadillaandRegalado,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1InesLuciano,Leonor,J.,Nocon,RodolfoandCui,EmeterioJJ.,Concurring.
2Rollo,45.
3Id.
4Id.,13.
5Id.
6Itisnotclearwhichportionswerecoveredbyexhibit"J'andwhichwereembracedbyexhibit"T".
7L.R.C.No.N29443M,LRCRec.No.41856(CFIBranchVI,Malolos,Bulacan)thedecisionwas
renderedbyJudgeRoqueTamayo.
8Rollo,id.,10.
9Id.,4546.
10Id.,1321.
11Averia,Jr.v.Caguioa,No.65129,December29,1986,146SCRA459.
12Supra,462.
13Zunigav.CourtofAppeals,No.L49776,January28,1980,95SCRA740,749.
14Manalov.Mariano,No.L33850,January22,1976,69SCRA80.
15Adillev.CourtofAppeals,No.L44546,January29,1988,157SCRA455.

16Panganv.CourtofAppeals,No.L39299,October18,1988,166SCRA375.
17CIVILCODE,art.749.
18Rollo,supra,106.
19Id.,46.
20Id.
21Id.
22SeeIITOLENTINO,CIVILCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES501(1972ed.)
23CIVILCODE,art.760.
24Supra,art.764.
25Supra,art.765.
26Rollo,id.,46.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation