Doctrine: A survey made in a cadastral proceeding is not a proof of ownership. It merely identifies each lot preparatory to a judicial proceeding for adjudication of title, its purpose is to identify and delineate the extent of the land.
On prescription: Art 1137 of the Civil Code only applies to private lands, not to public lands even if they have been declared alienable and disposable. Open, continuous, exclusive, notorious (OCEN) must be conclusively established. CA141 is applicable in this case.
Facts of the Case:
Petitioners sought to enjoin NAPOCOR (Nat’l Power Corporation) from selling the Caliraya Hydroelectric Power Plant. They claim ownership over portions of the land where the power plant stood, specifically Lot 1873 and Lot 72.
NAPOCOR claimed that they acquired Lot 1873 through purchase from Oliva Ferrer. As for Lot 72, it claimed that its right to occupy and use of the lot stemmed from the Right of Way Agreement executed by the petitioners.
Petitioners opposed this claim by alleging that Ferrer was a co-heir who owned Lot 1873. As a heir, Ferrer only inherited some part of the lot and the sale to NAPOCOR in excess of this amount was w/o authority from the co-owners and therefore, void.
RTC dismissed the action for injunction and claim for damages. It ruled that the petitioners failed to present convincing proof of ownership of Lot 1873, other than the Bureau of Lands certificate claimed and surveyed for Crispulo Ferrer. As for Lot 72, the RTC ruled that it had already been acquired by Hilaria and Victoria Puhawan through extrajudicial partition. Hence, petitioners have no legal claim over Lot 72. CA affirmed.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners have a claim to ownership of Lots 1873 and Lot 72.
Held:
No. The reliance of the petitioners on the Bureau of Lands certificate to prove ownership to Lot 1873 is not sufficient. All that the certification proved was that Crispulo Ferrer was a survey claimant. Purpose of a survey plan is simply to identify and delineate the extent of the land. It is not a proof of ownership. In the case, the petitioners were not even able to present the actual survey plan. Also, the CA found that the portions of land covered by his Ferrer’s title were not those where NAPOCOR’s power plant stood.
Also, they could NOT have acquired it by prescription. Acquisition of ownership of public lands is governed by Commonwealth Act 141, not Art. 1137 of Civil Code. There was no conclusive proof that Lot 1873 was decreed to be alienable and disposable. There was also nothing to support the allegation that their predecessors occupied Lot 1873 since 1916 or June 12, 1945. Assuming that they have held possession since the date, (when NAPOCOR occupied portions of the land and began construction of the power plant) their inaction for 61 years establishes the fact that they were never in OCEN. Their claim is barred by laches.
As for Lot 72, their claim is also barred by laches. The lot was occupied by NAPOCOR since 1937 and again their inaction was to the petitioner’s disadvantage.
Motion for reconsideration denied.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento