CATHOLIC VICAR APOSTOLIC vs CA [G.R. No.

80294-95; September 21, 1988]

GANCAYCO, J.
FACTS:

Catholic Vicar of the Mountain Province (Vicar for brevity) filed with the CFI of Baguio, Benguet an

application for registration of title for Lots 1,2,3 and 4 of Psu-194357 situated at Poblacion Central, La
Trinidad, Benguet. Said lots being the sites of the Catholic Church building, convents, school, etc.
Upon learning of the application, the Heirs of Juan Valdez and the Heirs of Emigdio Octaviano filed an
Answer/Opposition thereto on Lots 2 and 3,respectively, asserting ownership and title thereto.
The land registration court promulgated its decision confirming the registrable title to Vicar. Both heirs of
Valdez and Octaviano appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The CA modified the decision of the land registration court and found that Lots 2 and 3 were possessed
by the predecessors-in-interest of private respondents under claim of ownership in good faith from 1906
to 1951; that Vicar has been in possession of the same lots as bailee in commodatum up to 1951, when
Vicar repudiated the trust and when it applied for registration in1962; that Vicar had just been in
possession as owner for 11years, hence there is no possibility of acquisitive prescription which requires
10 years possession with just title and 30 years possession without.
The appellate court did not believe the findings of the trial court that Lot 2 was acquired from Juan
Valdez by purchase and Lot 3 was acquired also by purchase from Egmidio Octaviano by petitioner
Vicar because there was absolutely no documentary evidence to support the same and the alleged
purchases were never mentioned in the application for registration.

ISSUE: WON petitioner Vicar's failure to return the subject property to private respondents would constitute an
adverse possession that would entitle Vicar to have a just title over the questioned lots.
RULING:

Private respondents were able to prove that their predecessors' house was borrowed by petitioner Vicar

after the church and the convent were destroyed. They 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. 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.
The Court found that the predecessors-in-interest and private respondents were possessors under
claim of ownership in good faith from 1906; that petitioner Vicar was only a bailee in commodatum; and
that the adverse claim and repudiation of trust came only in 1951.

TAN vs. VALDEHUEZA

Facts:
An action instituted by the plaintiff-appellee Lucia Tan against the defendants-appellants Arador Valdehueza and
Rediculo Valdehueza for (a) declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of the parcel of land described
in the first cause of action of the complaint, and (b) consolidation of ownership of two portions of another parcel
of (unregistered) land described in the second cause of action of the complaint, purportedly sold to the plaintiff in
two separate deeds of pacto de retro. Parcel of land described in the first cause of action was the subject matter
of the public auction sale in Oroquieta, Misamis Occidental, wherein the TAN was the highest bidder . Due to the
failure of defendant Arador Valdehueza to redeem the said land within the period of one year as being provided
by law, MR. VICENTE D. ROA who was then the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff executed an ABSOLUTE DEED OF
SALE in favor of the plaintiff LUCIA TAN. Civil case 2002 was a complaint for injunction filed by Tan on July 24,
1957 against the Valdehuezas, to enjoin them "from entering the above-described parcel of land and
gathering the nuts therein " This complaint and the counterclaim were subsequently dismissed. The Valdehuezas
appealed to the lower court alleging that it erred in making a finding on the second cause of action that the
transactions between the parties were simple loan, instead, it should be declared as equitable mortgage.
Held:
The trial court treated the registered deed of pacto de retro as an equitable mortgage but considered the
unregistered deed of pacto de retro "as a mere case of simple loan, secured by the property thus sold under
pacto de retro," on the ground that no suit lies to foreclose an unregistered mortgage. It would appear that the
trial judge had not updated himself on law
and jurisprudence; he cited, in support of his ruling, article 1875 of the old Civil Code and decisions of this Court
circa 1910 and 1912. Under article 1875 of the Civil Code of 1889, registration was a necessary requisite for the
validity of a mortgage even as between the parties, but under article 2125 of the new Civil Code (in effect since
August 30,1950), this is no longer so. 4 If the instrument is not recorded, the mortgage is nonetheless binding
between the parties. (Article 2125, 2nd sentence).
The Valdehuezas having remained in possession of the land and the realty taxes having been paid by them, the
contracts which purported to be pacto de retro transactions are presumed to be equitable mortgages, 5 whether
registered or not, there being no third parties involved.
Mina v. Pascual, 25 Phil 540
Francisco is the owner of land and he allowed his brother, Andres, to erect a warehouse in that lot. Both
Francisco and Andres died and their children became their respective heirs: Mina for Francisco and Pascual for
Andres. Pascual sold his share of the warehouse and lot. Mina opposed because the lot is hers because her
predecessor (Francisco) never parted with its ownership when he let Andres construct a warehouse, hence, it
was a contract of commodatum. What is the nature of the contract between Francisco and Andres?
The Supreme Court held that it was not a commodatum. It is an essential feature of commodatum that the use of
the thing belonging to another shall be for a certain period. The parties never fixed a definite period during which
Andres could use the lot and afterwards return it.
NOTA BENE: It would seem that the Supreme Court failed to consider the possibility of a contract of precardium
between Francisco and Andres. Precardium is a kind of commodatum wherein the bailor may demand the object
at will if the contract does not stipulate a period or use to which the thing is devoted.