PEREZ V S .

MENDOZ A
GR NO. L-22006 JULY 28, 1975

[PRIOR POSSESSION]

CHRISTIAN GIGANTE
ISSUE:
WHO HAS A BETTER
RIGHT TO THE
PROPERTY IN
QUESTION?
RULES:
Art. 433 Civil Code. Actual possession under claim of
ownership raises disputable presumption of ownership. The
true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery
of the property. (n)

Art. 531 Civil Code. Possession is acquired by the material

occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by the
fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the
proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring
such right.
 ANALYSIS
1922 - Felisa exchanged the parcel of
land to her aunt Andrea for use as a
school site.
There was a deed of exchange
Donated half to municipality
Originally part of bigger tract of 1927 - Donated half to Margarita,
land owned by Estanislao her daughter and Nicolas.
Montalbo. Since then, Margarita
and Nicolas possessed and
occupied the land continuously, in
the concept of owners.
Pedro Petra 1951 public instrument
Felisa
1959 - Sps. Basilio Perez and Petra
Montalbo filed an action to quiet title.
Claim: Land was sold to them by
Felisas husband and children

The Trial Court dismissed the complaint and declared the Sps.
Mendoza have a better right to the property in question.
CA affirmed.
ARGUMENTS
SPS. PEREZ SPS. MENDOZA
Land in question is part of Land was donated propter
Felisas share. nuptias by Margaritas mother.
It was sold to them by Felisas They have been in continuous
husband and children. possession since 1927.
They leased the property to They built a house in 1928.
Sps. Mendoza.
They filed an ejectment suit
against Sps. Mendoza because
they refused to leave.
 CONCLUSION
Sps. Mendoza = better right
Sps. Mendoza were in actual and continuous possession of the
land, openly, adversely, and in the concept of owners thereof since
1927 thereby acquiring ownership of the land through acquisitive
prescription.

Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable

presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to
judicial process for the recovery of the property (Art. 433).
Presumption has not been successfully rebutted by evidence.
In case of conflicting claims of possession, the present possessor is
to be preferred (Art. 538).