Mercado v.

Espinocilla
G.R. No. 184109. February 1, 2012.
First Division; Villarama, Jr. J.

Facts: Doroteo Espinocilla owned a parcel of land, Lot No. 552, with an area of 570 sq. m.. After
he died, his five children, Salvacion, Aspren, Isabel, Macario, and Dionisia divided the equally
among themselves. Later, Dionisia died without issue ahead of her four siblings, and Macario took
possession of Dionisias share. In an affidavit of transfer of real property dated November 1, 1948,
Macario claimed that Dionisia had donated her share to him in May 1945.
Thereafter, on August 9, 1977, Macario and his daughters Betty Gullaba and Saida Gabelo
sold 225 sq. m. to his son Roger Espinocilla, husband of Belen Espinocilla and father of Ferdinand
Espinocilla.
Sometime in 2000, Celerino Mercado sued, before a Regional Trial Court (RTC), Belen and
Ferdinand Espinocilla to recover two portions: an area of 28.5 sq. m. which he bought from Aspren
and another 28.5 sq. m. which allegedly belonged to him but was occupied by Macarios house. His
claim has since been modified to an alleged encroachment of only 39 sq. m. that he claims must be
returned to him. He avers that he is entitled to own and possess 171 sq. m. of Lot No. 552, having
inherited 142.5 sq. m. from his mother Salvacion and bought 28.5 sq. m. from his aunt Aspren.
According to him, his mothers inheritance is 142.5 sq. m., that is, 114 sq. m. from Doroteo plus
28.5 sq. m. from Dionisia. Since the area he occupies is only 132 sq. m., he claims that respondents
encroach on his share by 39 sq. m.
In 2006, the RTC ruled in favor of Mercado and held that he is entitled to 171 sq. m. It
found that Mercado inherited 142.5 sq. m. from his mother Salvacion and bought 28.5 sq. m. from
his aunt Aspren. Thus, the Espinocillas must return 39 sq. m. to Mercado who occupies only 132 sq.
m. There being no public document to prove Dionisias donation, the RTC also held that Macarios
1948 affidavit is void and is an invalid repudiation of the shares of his sisters Salvacion, Aspren, and
Isabel in Dionisias share. Accordingly, Macario cannot acquire said shares by prescription. Finally,
and more importantly, the RTC further held that the oral partition of Lot No. 552 by Doroteos
heirs did not include Dionisias share and that partition should have been the main action. Thus, the
RTC ordered partition and deferred the transfer of possession of the 39 sq. m. pending partition.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC.

Issue: Is Mercados action to recover certain portions of Lot No. 552 already barred by
prescription?

Held: Yes. Acquisitive prescription of real rights may be ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary
acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title for 10 years. In
extraordinary prescription, ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired
through uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years without need of title or of good faith.
Mercado himself admits the adverse nature of the Espinocillas possession with his assertion
that Macarios fraudulent acquisition of Dionisias share created a constructive trust. In a
constructive trust, there is neither a promise nor any fiduciary relation to speak of and the so-called
trustee (Macario) neither accepts any trust nor intends holding the property for the beneficiary
(Salvacion, Aspren, Isabel). The relation of trustee and cestui que trust does not in fact exist, and the
holding of a constructive trust is for the trustee himself, and therefore, at all times adverse.
Prescription may supervene even if the trustee does not repudiate the relationship.
Then, too, the Espinocillas uninterrupted adverse possession for 55 years of 109 sq. m. of
Lot No. 552 was established. Macario occupied Dionisias share in 1945 although his claim that
Dionisia donated it to him in 1945 was only made in a 1948 affidavit. Furthermore, Macarios
possession of Dionisias share was public and adverse since his other co-owners, his three other
sisters, also occupied portions of Lot No. 552.