GR L 4875; (November, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4875 November 27, 1953
Socorro Dela Cruz, petitioner, vs. Licerio Sosing and The Court of Appeals, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Socorro Dela Cruz filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Samar to recover ownership and possession of a parcel of land, plus damages. She claimed ownership by inheritance from her father, Tomas Dela Cruz, who had purchased it from Felipe Adora. She alleged that on March 21, 1938, respondent Licerio Sosing, by means of force and violence, occupied the land and deprived her of possession. Respondent Sosing claimed ownership by purchase from Felipe Balanquit, asserted that Tomas Dela Cruz acted in bad faith in acquiring the land from Adora, and maintained that he and his predecessor had been in possession since time immemorial. The trial court ruled in favor of Dela Cruz, declaring her the true owner and ordering Sosing to restore possession and pay damages. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that Sosing had acquired the land by prescription, having been in possession under claim of ownership from March 21, 1938, until the filing of the complaint, which the appellate court mistakenly identified as February 17, 1949. Dela Cruz filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching a certified copy of the original complaint showing the action was actually commenced on November 13, 1940.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s decision based on a misapprehension of the date the action was commenced, thereby incorrectly applying the rules on acquisitive prescription.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Court found that the Court of Appeals’ decision was premised on a misapprehension of fact regarding the commencement date of the action. The correct date was November 13, 1940, not February 17, 1949, as gleaned from the record. This rectification meant that Sosing had not acquired title by prescription by the time the action was filed, contrary to the appellate court’s finding. Since the Court of Appeals’ decision contained no findings on the factual issues of ownership, the Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and concluded that the trial court did not err in finding Dela Cruz to be the true owner of the property. Costs were imposed on the appellant, Sosing.