PRESCRIPTION- Acquisition Of Property By

Prescription
In Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp. v. Panganiban,  G.R. No. 151407, February 6, 2007, the
SC had the occasion to rule that like other causes of action, the prescriptive period for money
claims is subject to interruption, and in the absence of an equivalent Labor Code provision for
determining whether the said period may be interrupted, Article 1155 of the Civil Code may
be applied, (De Guzman v. CA, 358 Phil. 397 (1998), to wit:

ART. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the Court,
when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written
acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.

Thus, the prescription of an action is interrupted by (a) the filing of an action, (b) a written
extrajudicial demand by the creditor, and (c) a written acknowledgment of the debt by the
debtor. On this point, the Court ruled that although the commencement of a civil action stops
the running of the statute of prescription or limitations, its dismissal or voluntary
abandonment by plaintiff leaves the parties in exactly the same position as though no action
had been commenced at all. (Laureano v. CA, 381 Phil. 403 (2000).

Acquisition of property by laches.

In Sps. Aguirre v. Heirs of Lucas Villanueva, et al., G.R. No. 169898, October 27, 2006, the
petitioners have been in possession of a parcel of land for more than 26 years. They declared
it for taxation purposes, occupied it, built fences, planted trees and used the same as ingress
and egress towards their cottages. The respondent knew all these but they did not lift a finger
to bar them from doing so. They waited for 16 years to oust them. Will the action prosper?
Why?

Held: No. Laches had already set it. Since they have been in continuous possession and
enjoyment of the disputed land in good faith and with a just title since 1971 until 1997,
petitioners doubtlessly obtained title by ordinary acquisitive prescription.

The action is barred by laches which is defined as the failure to assert a right for an
unreasonable and unexplained length or time, warranting a presumption that the party
entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it. This equitable defense is
based upon grounds of public policy, which requires the discouragement of stale claims for
the peace of society. (Vda. de Rigonan v. Derecho, G.R. No. 159571, July 15, 2005, 463 SCRA
627).

Acquisition of property by prescription.

Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring (or losing) ownership and other real rights
through the lapse of time in the manner and under conditions laid down by law, namely, that
the possession should be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted and
adverse. Acquisitive prescription is either ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary acquisitive
prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title for 10 years. Without good
faith and just title, acquisitive prescription can only be extraordinary in character which
requires uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years. (Heirs of Maningding v. CA, 342 Phil.
567 (1979)).

Thus, for ordinary acquisitive prescription to set in, possession must be for at least 10 years,
in good faith and with just title. Possession is “in good faith” when there is a reasonable belief
that the person from whom the thing is received has been the owner thereof and could
thereby transmit his ownership. (Art. 1127, NCC). There is “just title” when the adverse
claimant comes into possession of the property through any of the modes recognized by law
for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but the grantor is neither the owner nor
in a position to transmit the right. (Art. 1129, NCC).