7/24/2019 1. Kiamco vs. CA

1/2

G.R. No. 96865 July 3, 1992

MARCELINO KIAMCO, petitioner-movant,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF AEAL!, JUANA "EGUILMO#GRAE, $UIRINA "EGUILMO#MANINGO,ANTONIA "EGUILMO, %&' JUAN "EGUILMO, respondents.

FACT!(

The original owner of the property in dispute, Faustino, is the son-in-law of the original defendantJose. Faustino sold bypacto de retrothe subject property to sps. Villamor. After the sale, Faustino left forindanao. !e returned to "ebu because the Villamor sps. needed money. !owever, since Faustino had nomoney, he re#uested his father-in-law, Jose, to buy the land from the Villamors. The Villamors allegedlysold the land in dispute to Jose in a private document of sale. $mmediately thereafter, Jose too% possessionof the property, introduced improvements and paid ta&es thereon.

Faustino aningo returned to "ebu and allegedly tried to forcibly ta%e possession of the propertyfrom his father-in-law although he did not succeed. 'evertheless, Faustino proceeded to e&ecute a deed ofsale in favor of (iamco. The latter allegedly %new, at the time of the sale, that Jose had already been inpossession of the disputed property for more than )*+ years. ) months after the e&ecution of the allegedsale, (iamco led a complaint for #uieting of title and recovery of possession with damages against Jose.

The trial court ruled that the deed of sale e&ecuted by the Villamors in favor of Jose is null and voidand that he had not ac#uired the subject property by ac#uisitive prescription. 0n appeal the decision ofthe trial court was reversed and set aside.

I!!UE(

12' Jose ac#uired the property by ac#uisitive prescription. )345

HEL"(

$t is undisputed that after the 6eed of 5ale was e&ecuted, Jose immediately too% possession of theproperty, in dispute in the concept of an owner, e&ercised acts of dominion and introduced improvementsthereon, and enjoyed the fruits thereof, continuously, peacefully, and adversely for more than twenty

years. $t is therefore, clear, that such adverse possession started on January 7+, 789+, which is before thee:ectivity of the 'ew "ivil "ode )August ;+, 789+.

7/24/2019 1. Kiamco vs. CA

2/2

The period of ten )7+ years must necessarily start from January, 789+, and not from August 789+since here, the prescriptive period under the old law was shorter. !ad the period under the old law beenlonger, it is the shorter period under the 'ew "ivil "ode that should apply, but this time, the period shouldcommence from the date of e:ectivity of the 'ew "ivil "ode @ August ;+, 789+ @ in view of the clause?but if since the time this "ode too% e:ect . . .?

1ith the facts obtaining in the present case, it is immaterial whether the property in dispute waspossessed by Jose 6eguilmo in good or bad faith. Thus, even if the alleged 6eed of 5ale was void ab initioas claimed by petitioner, what is important is that Jose immediately too% possession of the property andcontinuously and adversely possessed and enjoyed it for more than twenty years. esides, as correctlyfound by the respondent court, if Faustino claims that the 6eed of 5ale was not authentic and valid, whydid he not disturb Jose from 789+ until 78;.