Date: September 31, 1988

Facts:
- 1962: Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province (Vicar), petitioner, filed with the court an application for the
registration of title over lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 situated in Poblacion Central, Benguet, said lots being used as sites of the Catholic
Church, building, convents, high school building, school gymnasium, dormitories, social hall and stonewalls.
- 1963: Heirs of Juan Valdez and Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano claimed that they have ownership over lots 1, 2 and 3. (2 separate
civil cases)
- 1965: The land registration court confirmed the registrable title of Vicar to lots 1 , 2, 3 and 4. Upon appeal by the private
respondents (heirs), the decision of the lower court was reversed. Title for lots 2 and 3 were cancelled.
- VICAR filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing his
application for registration of Lots 2 and 3.
- During trial, the Heirs of Octaviano presented one (1) witness, who testified on the alleged ownership of the land in question
(Lot 3) by their predecessor-in-interest, Egmidio Octaviano; his written demand to Vicar for the return of the land to them; and
the reasonable rentals for the use of the land at P10,000 per month. On the other hand, Vicar presented the Register of Deeds for
the Province of Benguet, Atty. Sison, who testified that the land in question is not covered by any title in the name of Egmidio
Octaviano or any of the heirs. Vicar dispensed with the testimony of Mons. Brasseur when the heirs admitted that the witness if
called to the witness stand, would testify that Vicar has been in possession of Lot 3, for 75 years continuously and peacefully and
has constructed permanent structures thereon.

Issue: WON Vicar had been in possession of lots 2 and 3 merely as bailee borrower in commodatum, a gratuitous loan for use.

Held: YES.

Private respondents were able to prove that their predecessors' house was borrowed by petitioner Vicar after the church and the
convent were destroyed. They never asked for the return of the house, but when they allowed its free use, they became bailors in
commodatum and the petitioner the bailee.

The bailees' failure to return the subject matter of commodatum to the bailor did not mean adverse possession on the part of the
borrower. The bailee held in trust the property subject matter of commodatum. The adverse claim of petitioner came only in 1951
when it declared the lots for taxation purposes. The action of petitioner Vicar by such adverse claim could not ripen into title by
way of ordinary acquisitive prescription because of the absence of just title.

The Court of Appeals found that petitioner Vicar did not meet the requirement of 30 years possession for acquisitive prescription
over Lots 2 and 3. Neither did it satisfy the requirement of 10 years possession for ordinary acquisitive prescription because of
the absence of just title. The appellate court did not believe the findings of the trial court that Lot 2 was acquired from Juan
Valdez by purchase and Lot 3 was acquired also by purchase from Egmidio Octaviano by petitioner Vicar because there was
absolutely no documentary evidence to support the same and the alleged purchases were never mentioned in the application for
registration.

Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province vs. Court

of Appeals, Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano and Juan Valdez
Facts:

The whole controversy started when the herein petitioner filed an application for
registration of lands 1, 2, 3 and 4 in La Trinidad, Benguet on September 5, 1962. The
heirs of Juan Valdez and the heirs of Egmidio Octaviano filed an opposition on lots 2
and 3, respectively. On November 17, 1965, the land registration court confirmed the
registrable title of the petitioner. On May 9, 1977, the Court of Appeals reversed the
decision and dismissed the Vicars application. The heirs filed a motion for
reconsideration, praying that the lots be ordered registered under their names. The
Court of Appeals denied the motion for lack of sufficient merit. Both parties then
came before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a minute resolution, denied
both petitions. The heirs filed the instant cases for the recovery and possession of the
lots.

Respondents argue that the petitioner is barred from setting up the defense of
ownership or long and continuous possession by the prior judgment of the Court of
Appeals under the principle of res judicata. Petitioner contends that the principle is not
applicable because the dispositive portion of the judgment merely dismissed the
application for registration.

Issues:

(1) Whether the decision of the Court of Appeals constitute res judicata and therefore
bars the petitioner from alleging ownership over the lots

(2) Whether the petitioner has acquired the lots through acquisitive prescription

Held:

(1) The Court of Appeals did not positively declare private respondents as owners of
the land, neither was it declared that they were not owners of the land, but it held that
the predecessors of private respondents were possessors of Lots 2 and 3, with claim of
ownership in good faith from 1906 to 1951. Petitioner was in possession as borrower
in commodatum up to 1951, when it repudiated the trust by declaring the properties in
its name for taxation purposes. When petitioner applied for registration of Lots 2 and
3 in 1962, it had been in possession in concept of owner only for eleven years.
Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession for ten years, but always with
just title. Extraordinary acquisitive prescription requires 30 years. On the above
findings of facts supported by evidence and evaluated by the Court of Appeals,
affirmed by this Court, We see no error in respondent appellate court's ruling that said
findings are res judicata between the parties. They can no longer be altered by
presentation of evidence because those issues were resolved with finality a long time
ago. To ignore the principle of res judicata would be to open the door to endless
litigations by continuous determination of issues without end.

(2) Private respondents were able to prove that their predecessors' house was
borrowed by petitioner Vicar after the church and the convent were destroyed. They
never asked for the return of the house, but when they allowed its free use, they
became bailors in commodatum and the petitioner the bailee. The bailees' failure to
return the subject matter of commodatum to the bailor did not mean adverse
possession on the part of the borrower. The bailee held in trust the property subject
matter of commodatum. The adverse claim of petitioner came only in 1951 when it
declared the lots for taxation purposes. The action of petitioner Vicar by such adverse
claim could not ripen into title by way of ordinary acquisitive prescription because of
the absence of just title.

Motion for Reconsideration

Issue:

Who is entitled to the possession and ownership of the land?

Held:

Pursuant to the said decision in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R, the two lots in question
remained part of the public lands. This is the only logical conclusion when the
appellate court found that neither the petitioner nor private respondents are entitled to
confirmation of imperfect title over said lots. Hence, the Court finds the contention of
petitioner to be well taken in that the trial court and the appellate court have no lawful
basis in ordering petitioner to return and surrender possession of said lots to private
respondents. Said property being a public land its disposition is subject to the
provision of the Public Land Act, as amended.

Article 555 of the Civil Code provides as follows:

Art. 555. A possessor may lose his possession:

(4) By the possession of another, subject to the provisions of Article 537, if the
new possession has lasted longer than one year.But the real right of possession is not
lost till after the lapse of ten years.

It is clear that the real right of possession of private respondents over the property was
lost or no longer exists after the lapse of 10 years that petitioner had been in adverse
possession thereof. Thus, the action for recover of possession of said property filed by
private respondents against petitioner must fail. The Court, therefore, finds that the
trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the private respondents to be
entitled to the possession thereof. Much less can they pretend to be owners thereof.
Said lots are part of the public domain.
Civil Procedure; Judgment; Res judicata; Decision in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R of the Appellate Court which
has long become final and executory is res judicata as between the parties and the findings of facts
therein are conclusive.It is in said petition for review wherein the petitioner should have questioned
the findings of facts of the appellate court in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R but since said petition had been
denied outright, the aforestated decision of the appellate court which has long become final and
executory, is res judicata as between the parties and the findings of facts therein are conclusive. Thus,
the factual findings in said final judgment cannot be reviewed anew in the present proceedings.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Public Land Law; That the two lots in question remained part of the public
lands is the only logical conclusion when the appellate Court found that neither the petitioner nor
private respondents are entitled to confirmation of imperfect title over said lots.Pursuant to the said
decision in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R, the two lots in question remained part of the public lands. This is the
only logical conclusion when the appellate court found that neither the petitioner nor private
respondents are entitled to confirmation of imperfect title over said lots. [Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the
Mountain Province vs. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 639(1990)]