Vitug, Loisse Danielle D.

Sunga v. De Guzman (1979)

Appellees were not aware that appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond,
including that which pertained to them as their share, thus said possession cannot be said to
be adverse and open as to give rise to title by prescription.

FACTS:

A private contract of sale was signed by five (5) of the nine (9) legitimate heirs of the spouses
Juan de Guzman and Lucia Montemayor for a consideration of P700.00. The property in
question was a fishpond located in Pampanga.

However, the referred deed of sale is not notarized nor registered in the Register of Deeds of
Pampanga, hence the said property was still registered in the name of the father of the heirs
up to October 5, 1962. Three out of the four who did not sign questioned the sale.
Respondents claim they have acquired thru prescription.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners have acquired ownership thru acquisitive and extinctive
prescription

RULING:

NO.

Petitioners’ claim of prescription is made to rest on their alleged adverse possession of the
whole fishpond, dating back from 1948. Respondents were not definitely aware that
appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond, including that which pertained to
them as their share.

In that state of their knowledge as to the extent and nature of petitioners-appellant's

possession, said possession cannot be said to be adverse and open as to give rise to title by
prescription in favor of petitioners-appellants.

A fishpond is not as physically or actually occupied or held in possession as a parcel of land,

in that the signs of possession in the latter are more visible, and the extent of its exercise or
enjoyment, more manifest and easily determined.

The tax declaration over the land has remained up to the present in the name of the original
owners, the deceased parents of respondents-appellees. The possession of petitioners-
appellants, was, therefore, not completely adverse or open, nor was it truly in the concept of
an owner, which are indispensable elements for prescription to become legally effective as a
means of acquiring real property

Vitug, Loisse Danielle D.

 Sunga v. De Guzman (1979)

Appellees were not aware that appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond,
including that which pertained to them as their share, thus said possession cannot be said to
be adverse and open as to give rise to title by prescription.

FACTS:

A private contract of sale was signed by five (5) of the nine (9) legitimate heirs of the spouses
Juan de Guzman and Lucia Montemayor for a consideration of P700.00. The property in
question was a fishpond located in Pampanga.

However, the referred deed of sale is not notarized nor registered in the Register of Deeds of
Pampanga, hence the said property was still registered in the name of the father of the heirs
up to October 5, 1962. Three out of the four who did not sign questioned the sale.
Respondents claim they have acquired thru prescription.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners have acquired ownership thru acquisitive and extinctive
prescription

RULING:

NO.

Petitioners’ claim of prescription is made to rest on their alleged adverse possession of the
whole fishpond, dating back from 1948. Respondents were not definitely aware that
appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond, including that which pertained to
them as their share.

In that state of their knowledge as to the extent and nature of petitioners-appellant's

possession, said possession cannot be said to be adverse and open as to give rise to title by
prescription in favor of petitioners-appellants.

A fishpond is not as physically or actually occupied or held in possession as a parcel of land,

in that the signs of possession in the latter are more visible, and the extent of its exercise or
enjoyment, more manifest and easily determined.

The tax declaration over the land has remained up to the present in the name of the original
owners, the deceased parents of respondents-appellees. The possession of petitioners-
appellants, was, therefore, not completely adverse or open, nor was it truly in the concept of
an owner, which are indispensable elements for prescription to become legally effective as a
means of acquiring real property

Vitug, Loisse Danielle D.

Sunga v. De Guzman (1979)
Appellees were not aware that appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond,
including that which pertained to them as their share, thus said possession cannot be said to
be adverse and open as to give rise to title by prescription.

FACTS:

A private contract of sale was signed by five (5) of the nine (9) legitimate heirs of the spouses
Juan de Guzman and Lucia Montemayor for a consideration of P700.00. The property in
question was a fishpond located in Pampanga.

However, the referred deed of sale is not notarized nor registered in the Register of Deeds of
Pampanga, hence the said property was still registered in the name of the father of the heirs
up to October 5, 1962. Three out of the four who did not sign questioned the sale.
Respondents claim they have acquired thru prescription.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners have acquired ownership thru acquisitive and extinctive
prescription

RULING:

NO.

Petitioners’ claim of prescription is made to rest on their alleged adverse possession of the
whole fishpond, dating back from 1948. Respondents were not definitely aware that
appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond, including that which pertained to
them as their share.

In that state of their knowledge as to the extent and nature of petitioners-appellant's

possession, said possession cannot be said to be adverse and open as to give rise to title by
prescription in favor of petitioners-appellants.

A fishpond is not as physically or actually occupied or held in possession as a parcel of land,

in that the signs of possession in the latter are more visible, and the extent of its exercise or
enjoyment, more manifest and easily determined.

The tax declaration over the land has remained up to the present in the name of the original
owners, the deceased parents of respondents-appellees. The possession of petitioners-
appellants, was, therefore, not completely adverse or open, nor was it truly in the concept of
an owner, which are indispensable elements for prescription to become legally effective as a
means of acquiring real property

Vitug, Loisse Danielle D.

Sunga v. De Guzman (1979)
Appellees were not aware that appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond,
including that which pertained to them as their share, thus said possession cannot be said to
be adverse and open as to give rise to title by prescription.

FACTS:

A private contract of sale was signed by five (5) of the nine (9) legitimate heirs of the spouses
Juan de Guzman and Lucia Montemayor for a consideration of P700.00. The property in
question was a fishpond located in Pampanga.

However, the referred deed of sale is not notarized nor registered in the Register of Deeds of
Pampanga, hence the said property was still registered in the name of the father of the heirs
up to October 5, 1962. Three out of the four who did not sign questioned the sale.
Respondents claim they have acquired thru prescription.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners have acquired ownership thru acquisitive and extinctive
prescription

RULING:

NO.

Petitioners’ claim of prescription is made to rest on their alleged adverse possession of the
whole fishpond, dating back from 1948. Respondents were not definitely aware that
appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond, including that which pertained to
them as their share.

In that state of their knowledge as to the extent and nature of petitioners-appellant's

possession, said possession cannot be said to be adverse and open as to give rise to title by
prescription in favor of petitioners-appellants.

A fishpond is not as physically or actually occupied or held in possession as a parcel of land,

in that the signs of possession in the latter are more visible, and the extent of its exercise or
enjoyment, more manifest and easily determined.

The tax declaration over the land has remained up to the present in the name of the original
owners, the deceased parents of respondents-appellees. The possession of petitioners-
appellants, was, therefore, not completely adverse or open, nor was it truly in the concept of
an owner, which are indispensable elements for prescription to become legally effective as a
means of acquiring real property

Vitug, Loisse Danielle D.

Sunga v. De Guzman (1979)
Appellees were not aware that appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond,
including that which pertained to them as their share, thus said possession cannot be said to
be adverse and open as to give rise to title by prescription.

FACTS:

A private contract of sale was signed by five (5) of the nine (9) legitimate heirs of the spouses
Juan de Guzman and Lucia Montemayor for a consideration of P700.00. The property in
question was a fishpond located in Pampanga.

However, the referred deed of sale is not notarized nor registered in the Register of Deeds of
Pampanga, hence the said property was still registered in the name of the father of the heirs
up to October 5, 1962. Three out of the four who did not sign questioned the sale.
Respondents claim they have acquired thru prescription.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners have acquired ownership thru acquisitive and extinctive
prescription

RULING:

NO.

Petitioners’ claim of prescription is made to rest on their alleged adverse possession of the
whole fishpond, dating back from 1948. Respondents were not definitely aware that
appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond, including that which pertained to
them as their share.

In that state of their knowledge as to the extent and nature of petitioners-appellant's

possession, said possession cannot be said to be adverse and open as to give rise to title by
prescription in favor of petitioners-appellants.

A fishpond is not as physically or actually occupied or held in possession as a parcel of land,

in that the signs of possession in the latter are more visible, and the extent of its exercise or
enjoyment, more manifest and easily determined.

The tax declaration over the land has remained up to the present in the name of the original
owners, the deceased parents of respondents-appellees. The possession of petitioners-
appellants, was, therefore, not completely adverse or open, nor was it truly in the concept of
an owner, which are indispensable elements for prescription to become legally effective as a
means of acquiring real property

Vitug, Loisse Danielle D.

Sunga v. De Guzman (1979)
Appellees were not aware that appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond,
including that which pertained to them as their share, thus said possession cannot be said to
be adverse and open as to give rise to title by prescription.

FACTS:

A private contract of sale was signed by five (5) of the nine (9) legitimate heirs of the spouses
Juan de Guzman and Lucia Montemayor for a consideration of P700.00. The property in
question was a fishpond located in Pampanga.

However, the referred deed of sale is not notarized nor registered in the Register of Deeds of
Pampanga, hence the said property was still registered in the name of the father of the heirs
up to October 5, 1962. Three out of the four who did not sign questioned the sale.
Respondents claim they have acquired thru prescription.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners have acquired ownership thru acquisitive and extinctive
prescription

RULING:

NO.

Petitioners’ claim of prescription is made to rest on their alleged adverse possession of the
whole fishpond, dating back from 1948. Respondents were not definitely aware that
appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond, including that which pertained to
them as their share.

In that state of their knowledge as to the extent and nature of petitioners-appellant's

possession, said possession cannot be said to be adverse and open as to give rise to title by
prescription in favor of petitioners-appellants.

A fishpond is not as physically or actually occupied or held in possession as a parcel of land,

in that the signs of possession in the latter are more visible, and the extent of its exercise or
enjoyment, more manifest and easily determined.

The tax declaration over the land has remained up to the present in the name of the original
owners, the deceased parents of respondents-appellees. The possession of petitioners-
appellants, was, therefore, not completely adverse or open, nor was it truly in the concept of
an owner, which are indispensable elements for prescription to become legally effective as a
means of acquiring real property

Vitug, Loisse Danielle D.

Sunga v. De Guzman (1979)
Appellees were not aware that appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond,
including that which pertained to them as their share, thus said possession cannot be said to
be adverse and open as to give rise to title by prescription.

FACTS:

A private contract of sale was signed by five (5) of the nine (9) legitimate heirs of the spouses
Juan de Guzman and Lucia Montemayor for a consideration of P700.00. The property in
question was a fishpond located in Pampanga.

However, the referred deed of sale is not notarized nor registered in the Register of Deeds of
Pampanga, hence the said property was still registered in the name of the father of the heirs
up to October 5, 1962. Three out of the four who did not sign questioned the sale.
Respondents claim they have acquired thru prescription.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners have acquired ownership thru acquisitive and extinctive
prescription

RULING:

NO.

Petitioners’ claim of prescription is made to rest on their alleged adverse possession of the
whole fishpond, dating back from 1948. Respondents were not definitely aware that
appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond, including that which pertained to
them as their share.

In that state of their knowledge as to the extent and nature of petitioners-appellant's

possession, said possession cannot be said to be adverse and open as to give rise to title by
prescription in favor of petitioners-appellants.

A fishpond is not as physically or actually occupied or held in possession as a parcel of land,

in that the signs of possession in the latter are more visible, and the extent of its exercise or
enjoyment, more manifest and easily determined.

The tax declaration over the land has remained up to the present in the name of the original
owners, the deceased parents of respondents-appellees. The possession of petitioners-
appellants, was, therefore, not completely adverse or open, nor was it truly in the concept of
an owner, which are indispensable elements for prescription to become legally effective as a
means of acquiring real property

Vitug, Loisse Danielle D.

Sunga v. De Guzman (1979)
Appellees were not aware that appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond,
including that which pertained to them as their share, thus said possession cannot be said to
be adverse and open as to give rise to title by prescription.

FACTS:

A private contract of sale was signed by five (5) of the nine (9) legitimate heirs of the spouses
Juan de Guzman and Lucia Montemayor for a consideration of P700.00. The property in
question was a fishpond located in Pampanga.

However, the referred deed of sale is not notarized nor registered in the Register of Deeds of
Pampanga, hence the said property was still registered in the name of the father of the heirs
up to October 5, 1962. Three out of the four who did not sign questioned the sale.
Respondents claim they have acquired thru prescription.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners have acquired ownership thru acquisitive and extinctive
prescription

RULING:

NO.

Petitioners’ claim of prescription is made to rest on their alleged adverse possession of the
whole fishpond, dating back from 1948. Respondents were not definitely aware that
appellant's possession extended over the whole fishpond, including that which pertained to
them as their share.

In that state of their knowledge as to the extent and nature of petitioners-appellant's

possession, said possession cannot be said to be adverse and open as to give rise to title by
prescription in favor of petitioners-appellants.

A fishpond is not as physically or actually occupied or held in possession as a parcel of land,

in that the signs of possession in the latter are more visible, and the extent of its exercise or
enjoyment, more manifest and easily determined.

The tax declaration over the land has remained up to the present in the name of the original
owners, the deceased parents of respondents-appellees. The possession of petitioners-
appellants, was, therefore, not completely adverse or open, nor was it truly in the concept of
an owner, which are indispensable elements for prescription to become legally effective as a
means of acquiring real property