[G.R. No. 118180.

September 20, 1996]

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
Sps. NORMY D. CARPIO and CARMEN ORQUISA; Sps. ROLANDO D. CARPIO and
RAFAELA VILLANUEVA; Sps. ELISEO D. CARPIO and ANUNCIACION del
ROSARIO; LUZ C. REYES, MARIO C. REYES, JULIET REYES-RUBIN, respondents.
PADILLA, J.:
FACTS:
Private respondents mortgaged their parcel of agricultural land to DBP. When private
respondents defaulted on their obligation, petitioner foreclosed the mortgage on the land and
emerged as sole bidder in the ensuing auction sale Petitioner and private respondents entered into
a Deed of Conditional Sale wherein petitioner agreed to reconvey the foreclosed property to
private respondents. Upon completing the payment of the full repurchase price, private
respondents demanded from petitioner the execution of a Deed of Conveyance in their favor.
Petitioner then informed private respondents that the prestation to execute and deliver a
deed of conveyance in their favor had become legally impossible in view of Sec. 6 of Rep. Act
6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL) approved 10 June 1988, and Sec. 1
of E.O. 407 issued 10 June 1990.
ISSUE: Whether or not Rep. Act 6657, E.O. 407 and DBP Circular No. 11 rendered its
obligation to execute a Deed of Sale to private respondents "a legal impossibility."
HELD:
No. Neither Sec. 6 of Rep. Act 6657 nor Sec. 1 of E.O. 407 was intended to impair the
obligation of contract petitioner with private respondents. The CARL (Rep. Act 6657) was not
intended to take away property without due process of law. Nor is it intended to impair the
obligation of contracts. In the same manner must E.O. 407 be regarded. It was enacted two (2)
months after private respondents had legally fulfilled the condition in the contract of conditional
sale by the payment of all installments on their due dates. These laws cannot have retroactive
effect unless there is an express provision in them to that effect.

G.R. No. 169898

October 27, 2006

SPOUSES ANITA AND HONORIO AGUIRRE, petitioners,

vs. HEIRS OF LUCAS VILLANUEVA, NAMELY: JOSE T. VILLANUEVA, PABLO T.
VILLANUEVA, PEDRO T. VILLANUEVA, RODOLFO T. VILLANUEVA, DELIA V.
DELA TORRE, JUANITA V. INGLES, & SABELITO V. GELITO, respondents.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
FACTS:
A complaint for annulment or declaration of nullity of deed of exchange, tax declarations
and recovery of ownership and possession with damages was filed by private respondents against
petitioners. Private respondents alleged that they are the legitimate children and grandson of the
late spouses Lucas Villanueva and Regina Tupas Villanueva, owners of the land in question, and
that they possessed the subject parcel of land during their lifetime openly, publicly and
continuously in the concept of an owner and after their death, they were succeeded by their
children. Petitioners, on the other hand, claimed that Anita S. Aguirre is the lawful owner and
actual possessor of the land in question, it being a portion of a bigger parcel of land she inherited
from her deceased parents Eutiquiano Salazar and Regina Supetran Salazar who bought the land
from Ciriaco H. Tirol. It was also alleged that the same land is in the possession of the Tirol
family as owner thereof continuously, openly and adversely even before the second world war.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Aguirres had acquired title over the disputed property via ordinary
prescription.
HELD:
Yes. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title
for 10 years. 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. 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.
In the instant case, there is sufficient evidence to support petitioners claim that the
requirements for ordinary prescription are present. The defendants have been in public, and
uninterrupted possession of the land in question in the concept of an owner for a span of twenty
six (26) years from the time the land in question was included in the deed of exchange in 1971 up
to the time the plaintiffs complained in 1997. There is also no question that defendants

possession of the land in question was with just title. Just title in the sense that the defendants
acquired the land in question by way of exchange which is one of the modes recognized by law in
acquiring ownership. Petitioners possessed the property in good faith. Petitioner Anita Aguires
father, Eutiquiano Salazar, bought the subject property from Ciriaco Tirol, whose claim on the
property is founded on not only one Tax Declaration and a survey plan approved by the Bureau
of Lands in 1952. Thus, petitioners honestly believed that ownership of the subject parcel of land
was transmitted to Anita by succession from his deceased father, and who thereafter possessed
the property and exercised dominion over it.