ART.

523
1. MILLENA V. CA
GR No. 127797
 

Facts: A lot owned by Gregoria Listana was sold to Gaudencio Jacob. Potenciana Maramba
confronted Gaudencio and the latter explained that he had every right to do whatever he
pleased with the land since he had lawfully bought it from Gregoria Listana.

Gaudencio continued the possession which lasted for 40 years and eventually inherited by
Felisa Jacob. Felisa discovered that Florencio, son of Potenciana, has acquired a Free Patent
over the property the land and filed a protest. Eventually Florencio sold the Property to petitioner
Alejandro Millena. Thus, a decision was made ordering Millena to reconvey the portion of the
lot.

Issue: Whether or not prescription can be invoked in an action for reconveyance when the
plaintiff is in possession of the land to be reconveyed.

Ruling: No. It must be stressed that prescription cannot be invoked in an action for
reconveyance when the plaintiff is in possession of the land to be reconveyed. In view of this,
can it be said that Felisa Jacob was in possession of the contested portion of Lot 1874. Article
523 of the Civil Code states that possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right.
In order to possess, one must first have control of the thing and, second, a deliberate intention
to possess it. These are the elements of possession.

The records of the case show that respondent Felisa Jacob had exercised dominion over the
contested parcel of land. Apparently Felisa Jacob met the requisite elements of possession.
She exercised control over the parcel of land in litigation through her caretaker. Moreover, her
declaration that the land was her property and the payment of real property taxes manifested
clearly that she was in possession of the land
ART.524
2. HEIRS OF EXTREMADURA V. EXTREMADURA
GR No. 211065, June 15, 2016

Facts: Jose filed a case for quieting of title with recovery of possession against brother, Manuel
Extremadura claiming that he (Jose) purchased three (3) parcels of land. Since Jose resided in
Manila, he placed one parcel, with an area of 3.4945 square meters (subject land), in Manuel's
care, in exchange for which, the latter and his son, Marlon, religiously delivered the produce.

Unfortunately, respondents (Manuel and Marlon) continuously refused to deliver the produce of
the land or vacate the same despite his repeated demands. Respondents averred that they
have been in uninterrupted possession of the subject lanr for almost fifty (50) years; thus, Jose's
action was already barred by prescription or laches.

They further claimed that the fact that they gave Jose portions of the land's produce was
merely in keeping with the Filipino culture of sharing blessings with siblings and relatives. Also,
they argued that the deed of absolute sale presented by Jose is not the legal or beneficial title

Issue: Whether or not an owner of real estate has possession when another person is in such
oocupancy.

Ruling: Yes. Primarily, it should be stressed that "[possession is acquired by the material
occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our
will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right."Jose
exercised possession of the subject land through Manuel (and eventually, his son, Marlon)
whom he allowed to stay and care for the land in exchange for the delivery of the produce
thereof.

The fact that respondents delivered the produce of the land to Jose, which Manuel admitted in
open court, can only be construed as his recognition of Jose's ownership of the land despite his
tenuous claim that he merely did so because Jose is his brother.
ART. 526-527
9. ALEJO V. SPOUSES CORTES
GR No. 206114, June 19, 2017

Facts: A parcel of land belonged to the conjugal property/absolute community of Sps Alejo
where they built their house. Jorge approached his sister Jacinta Leonardo, the respondent, to
execute a Kasunduan with Dolores for the sale of the property. The Kasunduan was signed by
Jacinta and Ricardo as witness. Jorge, however, did not sign the agreement. Dolores then
made down payment and was allowed to posses the property and introduce improvements
thereon.

However, Jacinta decided to retract the Kasunduan due to Dolores’ failure to comply with her
obligation. Eventually, the subject property was sold by Jacinta to respondents Sps Cortez. At
that time of the sale, Dolores was in possession of the subject property.

Issue: Whether or not Dolores is standing as a possessor in good faith.

Ruling: Yes. It appears that Dolores acted in good faith in entering the subject property and
building improvements on it. Ricardo represented that Jacinta and Jorge wanted to sell the
subject property.

Indeed, upon her own brother's prodding, Dolores willingly parted with her money and paid the
down payment on the selling price and later, a portion of the remaining balance. The signatures
of Jacinta and of Ricardo (as witness) as well as her successful entry to the property appear to
have comforted Dolores that everything was in order. Article 526 of the Civil Code provides that
she is deemed a possessor in good faith, who is not aware that there exists in her title or mode
of acquisition any flaw that invalidates it.

Also, Dolores, as possessor in good faith, is under no obligation to pay for her stay on the
property prior to its legal interruption by a final judgment. She is further entitled under Article 448
to indemnity for the improvements introduced on the property with a right of retention until
reimbursement is made.