THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 232121. September 6, 2017.]

THE HEIRS OF MARTINA TRINIDAD ACIDO, REPRESENTED BY

CLARIFINA A. GALANG, RICARDO ACIDO, TOMAS ACIDO AND
NORMA A. DOMINGO, ET AL. , petitioners, vs. APOLINARIO RESPICIO,
MARLON SALES AND MATILDE HENSON SALES , respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated
September 6, 2017 , which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232121 (The Heirs of Martina Trinidad Acido, represented by
Clari na A. Galang, Ricardo Acido, Tomas Acido and Norma A. Domingo, et al.
vs. Apolinario Respicio, Marlon Sales and Matilde Henson Sales). — The Court
INFORMS petitioners that they or their authorized representative may claim from the
Cash Disbursement and Collection Division of this Court the excess payment in the
amount of P200.00 as deposit for sheriff's fee under O.R. No. 0182401 dated June 28,
2017 considering that there is no prayer for a temporary restraining order.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated October 5, 2016 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) and its Resolution 2 dated May 8, 2017 in CA-G.R. CV No. 101760. The
assailed rulings reversed the Decision 3 dated November 11, 2013 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 19 of Bangui, Ilocos Norte, in Civil Case No. 986-19, granting
petitioners' Complaint for Quieting of Title/Cancellation of Documents/Reconveyance,
Ownership, Possession and Damages.

The Facts

This case involves a parcel of land located at Brgy. Malingay, Pagudpod, Ilocos
Norte which is originally owned by the late Prospero Santiago Ubasa (Prospero) as
declared in Tax Declaration No. 10450 in the year 1913. Thereafter, the land was
divided into three lots covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 15746, 15747, and 15748 under
the names of respondents Apolinario Respicio (Respicio), Marlon Sales (Sales), and
Matilde Henson-Sales (Henson-Sales). 4
On May 5, 2008, petitioners led the aforesaid initiatory action against
respondents. During the pre-trial of the case, it was admitted that Prospero was
survived by his two (2) children, namely: Leona and Hermogenes. Leona is the daughter
of Paula Calventas who is the wife of Prospero. Hermogenes died without issue while
Leona was survived by her eight (8) children, namely: Maria or Martina, Benjamin, Jose,
Elena, Florencia, Mariano, Antonio and Manuel. All of them are now deceased and
petitioners are the surviving heirs of Martina, Benjamin, Jose, Elena and Mariano. 5
Respondent Respicio, on the other hand, is the great grandson of Elena Ubasa, the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 sister of Prospero. 6
In their Complaint, petitioners contended that respondent Respicio has no basis
to claim ownership over the lots in suit and could not convey and transfer any title over
it in favor of respondents Sales and Henson-Sales. Respondent Respicio, on the other
hand, raised the defense that he and his co-heirs co-owned the disputed lands and were
in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession thereof through their
predecessors-in-interest. 7 He acquired full ownership over the land on March 27, 1997
when the other co-heirs sold their shares to him as evidenced by a private writing.
For their part, respondents Sales and Henson-Sales averred that petitioners had
no cause of action against them and that they were buyers in good faith and for value. 8
Respondent Sales bought the subject property from respondent Respicio who has been
in possession and ownership of the same. Respondent Henson-Sales, in turn,
purchased the subject property from respondent Sales as evidenced by a Deed of
Confirmation of Sale.

The Ruling of the RTC

On November 11, 2013, the RTC ruled in favor of petitioners (plaintiffs therein)
stating that they are the lawful owners of the subject lands by virtue of succession. As
such, the lands should be quieted in their favor due to their legal and equitable title or
interest over the same. 9 The RTC further ruled that respondent Respicio was not able
to prove his ownership of the subject property. The dispositive portion of the Decision
reads:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered: EcTCAD

1. Lots numbers 15746, 15747 and 15748 of the Pagudpod Cadastre

are hereby quieted in favor of the plaintiffs;
2. All the conveyances made by defendant Apolinario Respicio in favor
of his co-defendants Marlos Sales and Matilde [H]enson-[S]ales are
declared null and void;
3. The Municipal Assessor of Pagudpod, Ilocos Norte is hereby
directed to cancel the tax declaration for Lots [No.] 15746, 15747
and 15748 under the name of all the defendants.
SO ORDERED. 1 0

The Ruling of the CA

In its assailed Decision dated October 5, 2016, the CA reversed the November
11, 2013 Decision of the trial court and ruled in favor of respondents. It ratiocinated
that petitioners' action for recovery of possession and other real rights has already
been barred by prescription as well as by laches. The remedies of accion publiciana or
accion reivindicatoria must be availed of within ten (10) years from dispossession.
Petitioners' complaint can be properly treated as accion reivindicatoria and it is clear
from the records that the action for recovery of possession and ownership of lands
was brought only in 2008 or after 18 years had elapsed. Thus, petitioners' cause of
action was already barred by extinctive prescription due to their failure to le the
complaint within the prescribed period. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated November
11, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19 of Bangui, Ilocos Norte, in Civil
Case No. 986-19 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint filed by plaintiffs-
appellees is DISMISSED. Costs on plaintiffs-appellees.
SO ORDERED. 1 1
The Motion for Reconsideration led by petitioners was denied by the CA in a
Resolution dated May 8, 2017. Hence, this petition.

The Issue

The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in reversing and
setting aside the Decision of the RTC on the ground that petitioners' right of action for
recovery of possession and other real rights has already been barred by prescription
and laches.

The Ruling of the Court

The petition lacks merit.

A perusal of the allegations and arguments set forth by the petitioners would
show that the CA did not commit any reversible error as to warrant the exercise of this
Court's appellate jurisdiction.
It is clear from the ruling of the CA that petitioners lost their right of action to le
an accion reivindicatoria on the reason that it took them eighteen (18) years to le the
instant complaint. The remedy of accion reivindicatoria must be availed of within ten
(10) years from dispossession.
Based on the records of the case, respondent Respicio began occupying the
unregistered subject properties in 1990 and new tax declarations were then issued in
his name and his co-respondents. The action to recover the possession and ownership
of the subject properties was brought only in 2008. As stated by the CA, extinctive
prescription has already set in.
In Cruz v. Court of Appeals , 1 2 in which an action for recovery of possession and
ownership of lands was brought only after 26 years had elapsed, this Court explained
this way:
And secondly, whether We consider the complaint of private respondents
to recover possession of the property in question as accion publiciana or
accion reivindicatoria , the same has prescribed after the lapse of ten
years . After private respondents had abandoned for 26 years the property
which is unregistered land, the law as well as justice and equity will not
allow them "to lie in wait and spring as in an ambush" to dislodge and
dispossess petitioners who during said period made and constructed
residences, buildings and other valuable improvements thereon, and
enjoying the fruits therefrom . 1 3 (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE , nding no reversible error in the assailed October 5, 2016
Decision and May 8, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 101760,
the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision and
Resolution.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 56-66. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando and concurred in by
Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Stephen C. Cruz.
2. Id. at 68-72.

3. Id. at 117-134.
4. Id. at 57.

5. Id. at 129.
6. Id. at 130.

7. Id. at 59.
8. Id. at 60.
9. Id.

10. Id. at 133-134.

11. Id. at 65.

12. 93 SCRA 619, 635-636 (1979); As also cited in Cutanda v. Heirs of Roberto Cutanda, G.R.
No. 109215, July 11, 2000, 335 SCRA 418, 426-427.

13. Id. at 636-637.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com