Arceo v.

CA
GR No. 81401. 18 May 1990.

FACTS: A&E

Blue respondents Esteban

Red and Virginia petitioners

Jose +
Sotera Antonio Lorenzo Pedro
Virginia

Carmelit
Romeo Cesar Manuel Rodolfo Zenaida
a

Sps Abdon Arceo and Escolastica Geronimo were owners of 4 unregistered parcels of land in Bulacan (6
involved, only 4 disputed).
Arceos executed a deed of donation inter vivos (J) bestowing property to Jose, who paid taxes thereon and took
personal possession.
o Another deed of donation (T) disposed more properties in favor of Jose
Later, the Arceos supposedly signed a deed of donation mortis causa revoking J (X) and giving away the
properties to all his grandchildren including Jose.
o This was only notarized 3 years later, after Escolastica died.
Virginia and her children filed with the cadastral court an application to register the lots in their names using J and
T.
o Pedro et al opposed this, claiming that they were each entitled to 1/3 thereof.
o Cadastral court rejected all of these and instead disposed of the property according to the law on intestate
succession.
o CA affirmed.
Virginia et al: cadastral court had no jurisdiction, it may only confirm existing title, and that lot should have been
granted to them based on OCENP since 1941, or by acquisitive prescription.
o They also asserted J and T.
o Pedro et al: cadastral had jurisdiction, issue of prescription was never brought and J had been rescinded.
Parties are not quarreling over genuineness of documents, but of the dates thereof.
o Pedro et al: J 27 September 1941, not 27 October 1941; X 3 October 1941
o Virginia et al: J 27 October 1941; X 3 October 1941 and assuming it came earlier, was notarized only
in 1944.

ISSUES + RULING:
**Who has right over lots in question? Virginia et al.

Does the cadastral court have jurisdiction over the matter? YES.
Act 496 has eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the
limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely as a cadastral court.
o This aimed to avoid multiplicity of suits.
o Where the issue, say, of ownership, is ineluctably tied up with the question of right of registration, the
cadastral court commits no error in assuming jurisdiction over it

Had Virgina et al acquired property through prescription? NO.

Virginia et al presented 4 events:
(1) Joses entry in 1941 until his death in 1970, and work done thereon;
(2) Upon his death, Virginia et al divided the same through extrajudicial partition;
(3) Taxes paid by Jose from 1941-1970; and
(4) Pedro et al never had them ousted from 1941-1970.
 They were supposing that land became co-owned after death of grandparents but in order for prescription to set in
in that context, the following must concur:
(1) clear showing that claimant has repudiated co-ownership;
(2) claimant has made known to rest of co-owners that he is assuming exclusive ownership;
(3) clear and convincing evidence thereof; and
(4) OCENP
o The fact that Jose occupied it in 1941does not amount to adverse possession since he was merely
occupying it as a co-owner.
o They did not make the extrajudicial partition known to Pedro et al.
HOWEVER, petition was granted based on J.
o Other than claims by Pedro et al that it had been revoked, J appears to have been executed in compliance
with legal requirements, i.e., as to form and acceptance.
o While the cadastral court was supposed to have attributed fraud on Jose in making Abdon sign (Pedr:
Abdon thought it was a deed of sale of another land), there is no evidence to that effect.
As to T, CA found it defective because it was not signed by Abdon Arceo after the death of his wife on September
1942 and does not contain the acceptance . . . by Jose Arceo and such is binding upon SC.
A valid donation, once accepted, becomes irrevocable, except on account of officiousness, failure by the donee to
comply with charges imposed in the donation, or by reason of ingratitude.

DISPOSITION: Granted.