Catholic Vicar Apostolic of The Mt. Province v. CA
Uploaded by
LouCatholic Vicar Apostolic of The Mt. Province v. CA
Uploaded by
LouTopic: Commodatum
Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mt. Province v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 80294-95 | September 21, 1988
Gancayco, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province (VICAR) filed an application
for registration of title over Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 in La Trinidad, Benguet. Said lots were the
sites of the Catholic Church building, convents, high school building, school gymnasium,
school dormitories, social hall, stonewalls, etc.
The buildings were constructed after liberation in 1945. Petitioner Vicar only declared
Lots 2 and 3 for taxation purposes in 1951. The improvements of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 were
paid for by the Bishop but said Bishop was appointed only in 1947, the church was
constructed only in 1951 and the new convent only 2 years before the trial in 1963.
The application for registration of title over the lots was approved by the regional trial
court.
Meanwhile, private respondents, the Heirs of Juan Valdez and the Heirs of Egmidio
Octaviano asserted ownership over Lots Nos. 2 and 3. The first lot being presently
occupied by the convent and the second by the women's dormitory and the sister's
convent.
ISSUE: May petitioner Vicar claim ownership over Lot Nos 2 and 3?
HELD:
No, VICAR does not own Lot Nos. 2 and 3. Predecessors-in-interest and private respondents
were possessors under claim of ownership in good faith from 1906. Petitioner Vicar borrowed
predecessors-in-interest and private respondents’ house after the church and the convent were
destroyed. Private respondents never asked for the return of the house, but when they allowed
its free use, they became bailors in commodatum and the petitioner the bailee. The bailees'
failure to return the subject matter of commodatum to the bailor did not mean adverse
possession on the part of the borrower. The bailee held in trust the property subject matter of
commodatum. The adverse claim of petitioner came only in 1951 when it declared the lots for
taxation purposes. When petitioner 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. The action of petitioner Vicar by such adverse claim could not
ripen into title by way of ordinary acquisitive prescription because of the absence of just title.
Petitioner Vicar may not claim ownership over Lots 2 and 3.
