Heirs of Extremadura represented by Elena H.

Extremadura, petitioners,vs.Manuel Extremadura and Marlon Extremadura,

respondents.G.R No. 211065Promulgated: June 15,2016

FACTS:Jose, now deceased, filed a Civil Case for quieting of title with recovery of
possession,rendition of accounting and damages against his brother, Manuel
Extremadura and his nephewMarlon Extremadura. Jose claimed that he purchased three
parcels of land located in Sitio Ponong,Barrio Rizal, Casiguran, Sorsogon from his aunt,
Corazon S. Extremadura through a a deed ofAbsolute Sale dated Dec. 18, 1984. Jose is
residing in Manila so he placed one parcel with an areaof 3.4945 sq/m in Manuel's care,
in exchange if which, the latter and his son Marlon, religiouslydelivered the produce of
the land. Unfortunately, respondents continuously refuse to deliver thefruits or vacate
the same despite his repeated demands, hence the complaint.Respondents averred that
they have been in open, continuous, peaceful, adverse anduninterrupted possession of
the subject land for almost 50years, thus Jose's action was alreadybarred by prescription
or laches. That Jose's portions of the land's produce were merely in keepingwith the
Filipino culture. That the Deed of Absolute Sale presented is not the legal or beneficial
titlecontemplated by Article 476 of the Civil Code.RTC ruled that Jose had a better right
over the land proven by the Deed of Absolute Sale inhis favor, which was notarized and
enjoys the presumption of regularity.Respondents elevated their case on appeal before
the Court of Appeals.In a Decision, the CA granted respondents appeal, and, thus,
dismissed Civil Case No.2005-7552. It ruled that Jise failed to establish legal and
equitable title over the subject land, thenotarized Deed of Sale did not transfer the
Land's ownership to him given that he was never placedin possession and control
thereof. He failed to prove the rights of the actual possessors of the landand to clarify
the true nature of the vendors possession before purchasing the same, thisdebunking
his claim that he is a buyer in good faith.The motion for reconsideration filed by the
heirs of Jose, represented by ElenaExtremadura was denied, hence the instant
petition.ISSUE: whether or not the CA correctly dismissed the Civil Case filed by
JoseRULING:The Court finds that Jose satisfactorily established his equitable title over
the subject land,entitling him and now the petitioners as his successors - in- interest to
the removal of the doubtthereon.Jose's title to the subject land was derived through a
contract of sale, as evidenced by anotarized document denominated as Deed of
Absolute Sale. Corazon' s right to transfer the land byvirtue of her ownership thereof
was clearly established during the trial. As Manuel admitted thatthe former owners of
the land were Alfredo and Coarzon Extremadura, and that he is paying taxesthereto in
the names of the latter.

It should also be stressed that possession is acquired by the material occupation of a

thingor the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or
by the properacts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right.Jose
exercised possession of the subject land through Manuel and his son Marlon whomhe
allowed to stay and care for the land in exchange for the delivery of the produce
thereof.Respondent's delivery of the produce of the land which Manuke admitted in
open court canconstrued as recognition of Jose's ownership of the property.In addition ,
Jose performed his duties by paying taxes therefor, which he presented asevidence
during trial.Manuel never presented any proof of payment of taxes which he claimed
before. Manuel'scontention that he acquired the property only because he was born and
lived thereon made hiscase weaker.Thus, by the sheer preponderance of evidence , the
Court concludes that Jose, not onlythrough the Execution of the Deed of Absolute Sake
in his favor, but also as evinced by hisexercise of the rights and obligations as owner
thereof was able to,prove his title over thesubject land . Therefore, the action for
quieting of title in Civil Case No.2005-7552 should prosperto the benefit of his heirs,
herein petitioners.Wherefore, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September
24, 2013 and theResolution dated December 12, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA -
G.R CV No. 99082 arehereby REVERSED and 7552 is REINSTATED.
© 2021 Scribd.VDownloaders.com