DOMINICA CUTANDA, SEBASTIAN, JUANARIO, SOTERO, CRISPIN, FLORENCIO. TRINIDAD.

NICANOR,
GABINA, CLAUDIO CUTANDA vs. HEIRS OF ROBERTO CUTANDA

Their action is an action publiciana to recover the right of possession and to be declared as owners.
The Court then said that the action may then be properly treated as accion reivindicatoria

FACTS:
Roberto Cutanda allegedly owned 2 parcels of land in Bohol, with Tax Declarations under Roberto’s
name. Upon his death, these lands were inherited by his children, which are the respondents in this
case. Except for Doque [father of Anastacio] who stayed in Bohol, all the other children resided in
Leyte.

In 1987, they returned to Bohol to personally work the inherited lands, but they found out the the
lands were being occupied by the petitioners and they refused to leave.

The respondents brought an action for recovery of possession against the petitioners.

PETITIONERS: The petitioners denied that Roberto Cutanda was the original owner of the lands.
Instead, they claimed that the owner was their uncle, Anastacio Cutanda, but he died without
children therefore the properties in question were inherited by his brothers and sisters, their children
are the current petitioners.

They also claimed that besides inheriting the lands from their parents and Anastacio, they also
worked as tenants cultivating the lands of their co-petitioners. Since 1933, they and their
predecessors-in-interest has been in possession of the land for more than 54 years. Also the tax
declarations of Anastacio on the land is dated as far back as 1933 and continuously until present,
under the name of the petitioners.

Also, even assuming that the heirs of Roberto Cutanda have the right over the land, they did not do
any action on their right since 1933 up to 1987.

RTC: decided in favor of the petitioners [heirs of anastacio], declaring that they have acquired the
ownership of the subject properties through prescription.

Action for recovery is barred by extinctive prescription.

CA: affirmed the dismissal of the case but declared that there was no sufficient evidence that they
were the owners of the properties.

Action for recovery is barred by laches.

Therefore the petitioners filed the petition for review on the ruling of CA that there was not enough
evidence to establish their ownership on the lands.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the respondents [heirs of Roberto] action for recovery of possession was already barred
by extinctive prescription or by laches.

2. Whether the petitioners have sufficient evidence to prove their ownership

RULING:
1. Extinctive Prescription: when rights and actions are lost through the lapse of time in the manner
and under the conditions laid down by law. It is also known as liberatory prescription.
Acquisitive Prescription: when one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of
time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law. It is also known as adverse possession.
(Article 1117 & 1118 CC)
Laches: Laches has been defined as failure or neglect for an unreasonable or unexplained length of
time to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier warranting
a presumption that he has abandoned his right or declined to assert it. It should be stressed that
laches is not concerned only with the mere lapse of time. (Agra et al. vs. PNB, GR 133317)

The respondents action for recovery is barred by acquisitive prescription/adverse possession

according to Sec. 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure (since possession commenced in 1938 where the
old Civil Code was still in force).

Sec 41 states that “10 years of actual adverse possession by any person claiming to be the owner for
that time of any person claiming to be the owner for that time of any land or interest in land,
uninterruptedly, continuously for 10 years by occupancy may have commenced of continued, shall
vest in every actual possessor of such land a full complete title, saving to the persons under
disabilities the rights, secured by the next section”

Therefore, by the lapse of 10 years of actual adverse possession, Anastacio Cutanda became the
owner of the land in question through acquisitive prescription.

2. Yes. They acquired ownership according to the old code, since possession of the property
commenced way back in 1938, and the old civil code was still in force.

The prescriptive period is then governed by Section 41 of the Code of Civil procedure, which stated a
prescriptive period of 10 years of actual adverse possession.

The Court then claimed Anastacio Cutanda as the owner of the land through acquisitive prescription.