Catholic Vicar

year. But the real right of possession is not lost till after the
lapse of ten years. (460a) (Emphasis supplied.)

Facts:
The controversy arose when Catholic Vicar applied for the
registration of lots located in La Trinidad, Benguet sometime in
September 1962. (A Catholic Church building, convents, high
school building, school gymnasium, school dormitories, social
hall, stonewall were constructed on said lots.)
The Heirs of Octaviano and Heirs of Juan Valdez opposed and
asked that said two lots be registered in their names, claiming
that they are the rightful possessors under a bona fide claim of
ownership thru their predecessors since around 1906; and that
Catholic Vicar came in only in the concept of a borrower in
commodatum, but that Catholic Vicar took it upon itself to claim
and repudiate the trust sometime in 1951, and since from that
time at least, possession of the heirs of Octaviano and Valdez
had been interrupted.
The court also said that neither Vicar nor the heirs are entitled
to the confirmation of imperfect title over said two lots.
The court ruled that the action of Vicar by such adverse claim
could not ripen into title by way of ordinary acquisitive
prescription because of the absence of just title. When it
applied for registration of Lots 2 and 3 in 1962, it had been in
possession in concept of owner only for eleven years. Ordinary
acquisitive prescription requires possession for ten years, but
always with just title. Extraordinary acquisitive prescription
requires 30 years
While the court did not positively declare the heirs as owners of
the land, neither was it declared that they were not owners of
the land, but it held that the predecessors of the heirs were
possessors of Lots 2 and 3, with claim of ownership in good
faith from 1906 to 1951, and it ordered Catholic Vicar to return
and surrender possession of said lots to the heirs.
Issue: Who is entitled to the possession of the lots in
question?
Ruling:
State owns the properties. Said lots are part of the public
domain.
Catholic Vicar was in possession of the said property as
borrower in commodatum from the heirs of Reyes and
Octaviano since 1906 but in 1951 Catholic Vicar repudiated the
trust when it declared the property for tax purposes under its
name. When it filed its application for registration of the said
property in 1962, Catholic Vicar had been in adverse
possession of the same for at least 11 years. Article 555 of the
Civil Code provides as follows:
Art. 555. A possessor may lose his possession:
(1) By the abandonment of the thing;
(2) By an assignment made to another either by onerous or
gratuitous title;
(3) By the destruction or total loss of the thing or because it
goes out of commerce;
(4) By the possession of another, subject to the provisions of
Article 537, if the new possession has lasted longer than one

From the foregoing provision of the law, particularly paragraph

4 thereof, it is clear that the real right of possession of the heirs
over the property was lost or no longer exists after the lapse of
10 years that Catholic Vicar had been in adverse possession
thereof.
Thus, the action for recovery of possession of said property
filed by the heirs against Catholic Vicar must fail.
The Court, therefore, finds that the trial court and the Court of
Appeals erred in declaring the heirs to be entitled to the
possession thereof. Much less can they pretend to be owners
thereof. Said lots are part of the public domain.