Mercado v.

Espinocilla

Facts: Doroteo Espinocilla left a parcel of land to his five children who divided the same equally
among themselves. One of the children, Dionisia died and Macario took possession of the latter’s
share to which he executed an affidavit of transfer and claimed that the said share of land was
donated to him by Dionisia. Petitioner Mercado filed an for recovery of possession, quieting of
title, partial declaration of nullity of deeds and damages on the ground of prescription. He
contended that he owned 171 sq.m of land, 114 sq.m which he inherited from his mother
Salvacion and 28.5 sq.m which he bought from his Aunt Aspren and another 28.5 which
allegedly belonged to him but was occupied by respondent who encroached the same.

Respondent on the other hand contended that they, he and his daughters, rightfully possess the
land they occupy by virtue of acquisitive prescription. Macario alleged that he owned a total of
228 sq.m; 114 he inherited from his mother Doroteo and 114 sq.m allegedly donated by Dionisia.

The trial court ruled for the plaintiff Mercado, that he is entitled to the 117 sq.m and that
respondent is not entitled of the 228 sq.m. Trial court also ruled that respondent cannot acquire
said shares of the land by prescription since the affidavit of transfer was void since there was no
public documents to prove of Dionisia’s donation.

CA: reversed the decision. Complaint was dismissed on the ground of extraordinary acquisitive
prescription has already set in favor of respondents.

Issue: w/n petitioner’s action to recover subject portion is barred by prescription.

Held: Yes. The Court affirmed the CA’s ruling that respondent was able to establish ownership
by extraordinary acquisitive prescription. Respondent has been in adverse possession for 55
years of the said portion of land. The sale made by Macario and his daughters to Roger confirms
the adverse nature of respondent’s possession because said sale was an act of ownership over
Macario’s original share and Dionisia’s share. Also, it was only in year 2000 that the complaint
was filed by petitioners against respondents thus by then, extraordinary presciription has already
set in favor of respondents.

The action was barred by extinctive prescription, where rights and actions are lost by lapse of
time. Again it was 55 years when complainant filed the action for recovery.

Moreover, even though Macario’s fraudulent act of depriving his three sisters of their shares in
that of Dionisia’s it can be said that the three sisters wasted their opportunity to question the said
act.