Heirs of Marcelino Cabal vs. Sps. Lorenzo Cabal and Rosita Cabal

G.R. No. 153625
July 31, 2006

FACTS: 

During his lifetime, Marcelo Cabal was the owner of a parcel of land situated.  Sometime in 1954, Marcelo died, survived by his wife and his children.  It appears that sometime in 1949, five years before he died, Marcelo allowed his son, Marcelino, to build his house on a portion of the lot.  Since then, Marcelino resided thereon. Later, Marcelino’s son also built his house on the disputed property.

In 1964, Marcelo’s heirs extra-judicially settled among themselves the lot.  In the interim, based on a consolidated subdivision plan, it was revealed that Marcelino and his son occupied and built their houses on an area located on the southernmost portion of another lot and not the adjacent lot designated to him.  The spouses Lorenzo and Rosita Cabal (respondents) confronted Marcelino on this matter which resulted to an agreement to a re-survey and swapping of lots for the purpose of reconstruction of land titles. However, the agreed resurvey and swapping of lots did not materialize.

Hence, respondents filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession with Damages against Marcelino.  They alleged that Marcelino introduced improvements in bad faith on their land with knowledge that the adjacent lot is titled in his name.  Marcelino contends that respondents have no cause of action against him because he has been in possession in good faith since 1949 with the respondents’ knowledge and acquiescence. He further avers that acquisitive prescription has set in.

ISSUES:

1)  Whether or not the lot where Marcelino built his house was co-owned by Marcelo’s children

2)  Whether or not Marcelino is a builder in good faith

HELD:

1) NO.  It is undisputed that Marcelino built his house on the disputed property in 1949 with the consent of his father. Marcelino has been in possession of the disputed lot since then with the knowledge of his co-heirs, such that even before his father died in 1954, when the co-ownership was created, his inheritance or share in the co-ownership was already particularly designated or physically segregated. Thus, even before the lot was subdivided, Marcelino already occupied the disputed portion and even then co-ownership did not apply over the disputed lot. Elementary is the rule that there is no co-ownership where the portion owned is concretely determined and identifiable, though not technically described, or that said portion is still embraced in one and the same certificate of title does make said portion less determinable or identifiable, or distinguishable, one from the other, nor that dominion over each portion less exclusive, in their respective owners.

Thus, since Marcelino built a house and has been occupying the disputed portion since 1949, with the consent of his father and knowledge of the co-heirs, it would have been just and equitable to have segregated said portion in his favor and not one adjacent to it.

2) Marcelino is deemed a builder in good faith at least until the time he was informed by respondents of his encroachment on their property. Marcelino’s possession of the disputed lot was based on a mistaken belief that the lot covered by his title is the same lot on which he has built his house with the consent of his father. There is no evidence, other than bare allegation, that Marcelino was aware that he intruded on respondents’ property when he continued to occupy and possess the disputed lot after partition was effected.