DOMINICA CUTANDA v.

HEIRS
OF ROBERTO CUTANDA
FACTS:
Roberto Cutanda owned 2 parcels of land in Bohol, and upon his death, his children became owners
of said land by inheritance. They left Bohol and established residence in Leyte. In 1988, they
returned to Bohol hoping to work on the land that was left to them. However, they discovered that
these lands were already in the possession of their relativesheirs of their uncles and aunts.

Petitioners averred that the land in question is actually owned by their late uncle, Anastacio
Cutanda, who died without children, and left the lands to his siblings, one of which was Roberto
Cutanda.
Furthermore, they claim rightful ownership of the land as they have been in open, contiguous,
adverse, and uninterrupted possession of these for about 55 years.

The trials court found for the Petitioners. However, the CA reversed the RTCs decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the rights of the heirs of Roberto Cutanda have already prescribed, thus, giving
rightful ownership to the Petitioners?

HELD:
The action brought by the respondents to the court was one of accion publiciana to recover the right
to possession and to be declared rightful owners of the land. Since the complaint actually put in
issue the ownership of the land, it should thus be treated properly as an accion reinvindicatoria.

Nevertheless, both have already prescribed as these rights are extinguished if not brought within 10
years from dispossession. Therefore, the petitioners have indeed acquired possession and
ownership of the land in question by prescription, as the respondents failed to bring this action only
55 years later.
HEIRS OF JUAN OCLARIT v. CA
FACTS:
Juan Oclarit purchased an unregistered land in Bohol for P100 from Macalos. This particular land did
not have specified boundaries, as it was only indicated that the borders were a brook, lands of
Gales, and another of Baja. He subsequently purchased 5 more unregistered parcels of land from
Gales, one of which was an irrigated rice and coconut lands, which is now the subject of the action.

Balasabas apparently entered the land about 15 years later and replaces the J.O. labels on top of
the trees with F.G. (Felipa Gales, his mother). The heirs of Oclarit then filed an action for the
quieting of the title and damages against Balasabas, averring that Oclarit exercised dominion and
ownership openly, peacefully, adversely and uninterrupted. The deceased even planted coconut
trees and other crops on the land, enjoyed their fruits and even paid realty tax on the land.

RTC initially found for Balasabas after having a Commissioner survey the lands and discovered the
discrepancy between the boundaries indicated in the Deed of Sales and the one written on the tax
declarations. The CA, however, reversed the decision, and ruled that Oclarit is the rightful owner of
the land.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the lands claimed by Balasabas are actually foreign and alien to the lands
claimed by Oclarit, making these lands actually his property?

HELD:
While it is true that tax declarations are not strong proof to claim ones property as his, it will stand in
court should these tax declarations be coupled with ones exercise of ownership, such as those
proven by Oclarits heirs.

Furthermore, although what defines a piece of land is not the area mentioned in its descriptions, but
the boundaries laid down, in cases such as this one, where the boundaries are unclear, the actual
size of the land gains importance.
HEIRS OF VENCILAO V. CA
One may not acquire property by prescription when that property is titled to another under the
Torrens System. It does not even matter whether occupation by the adverse claimant was open,
notorious and continuous. As long as the TCT is in someone elses name, the property belongs to
person who holds the TCT

FACTS:
On Feb 12, 1990, the heirs of Vencilao filed a complaint to quiet the title and recover a piece of land
against spouses Gepalgo.

Said heirs asserted that they acquired the land from their father who was in open, peaceful and
notorious enjoyment of the same. They presented tax declarations to prove said ownership
On the other hand, the Gepalgo spouses denied the claim and for proof as registered owners,
presented TCT No. 16042 which they acquired on public auction from the PNB.

RTC ruled in favor of Vencilao because the latter had been in possession, cultivation and enjoyment
for more than 30 years- long before a title was ever issued to the Gepalgos.

Upon appeal, the CA reversed and awared the property to Gepalgos because the latter were buyers
in good faith and holders in due course. Furthermore, they held a Torrens Title. That was the gold
standard of ownership for registered land.

Naturally, the heirs of Vencilao trooped to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Gepalgos had better right to the land.

HELD:
No.The RTC erroneously found for the petitioners. True, the Vencilaos enjoyed the property for more
than 30 years. However, prescription does not run against registered land. No one may acquire by
prescription or adverse possession land that is titled and registered even if occupation is adverse,
open and notorious. A Certificate of Title is absolute and unbeatable evidence of ownership in favor
of the person whose name appears upon it. It binds the whole world.