Cordero v. Cabral G.R. No.

L-36789, July 25, 1983, 123 SCRA 532

FACS!
the thrust of the Complaint is that a piece of land covered by T.C.T. No. 14513 in the name of
Gregorio . !campo "as illegally possessed by the defendants. #pon the other hand$ the
thrust of the %ns"er is that &the defendant 'ictoria (. Cabral is the real o"ner of )ot No. 5*+$
plan (sd*114,-$ "ith an area of 4$3.3 s/uare meters$ more or less$ erroneously or
fraudulently included in the property described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14513 of the
0egister of 1eeds of the (rovince of +ulacan$ registered in the name of the deceased
Gregorio . !campo and no" claimed by the herein plaintiffs.&
2r. Gregorio . !campo$ husband of the plaintiff 3elipa Cordero and father of the other
Corderos surnamed !campo$ died on 2ay 14$ 1,55. 2r. Gregorio left several properties$
"hich "ere inherited by the Corderos including the land in /uestion "hich parcel of land "as
originally registered in accordance "ith the )and 0egistration %ct on 1ecember 14$ 1,33$ and
"as registered and6or transferred in the name of 2r. Gregorio . !campo on 7uly 31$ 1,34.
%fter the death of the said 2r. Gregorio . !campo$ the Corderos herein too8 possession of
the said parcel of land "hich is a riceland$ but they found out that the southern portion of the
same "ith an area 4$3.3 s/uare meters$ more or less$ upon verification$ "as possessed by
the Cabrals$ et al herein$ 'ictoria (. Cabral$ %le9andro +erboso and 1almacio 2ontaos.
'ictoria (. Cabral claimed to be the o"ner of said portion "hile her co*Cabrals$ et al co*
possessed the same as her tenants.
Corderos alleged that because of the Cabrals$ et al: occupancy of the aforementioned
Corderos: portion of land "ith the area of 4$3.3 s/uare meters$ more or less$ to the e;clusion
of the latter$ the said Corderos failed to reali<e a yearly harvest of at least ten =1.> cavanes of
palay at the rate of (1.... per cavan$ from the harvest*time of 1,55 up to the present.
"SS#$! %&e'&er or (o' '&e Cabral), e' al *u)' re+*bur)e '&e ,ru+') re-e+ve.
.$L/! ?es. The disputed land is included in T.C.T. No. 14513 issued to Gregorio . !campo$
the predecessor of the Corderos. The original registration "hich includes the disputed land
"as not vitiated by error or fraud.
The Cabrals$ et al$ by their o"n admission$ are in possession of the disputed land. There is no
evidence that they "ere possessors in bad faith. .o0ever, '&e+r 1ood ,a+'& -ea)ed 0&e(
'&ey 0ere )erved 0+'& )u**o() 'o a()0er '&e -o*2la+('. %s possessors in bad faith
from the service of the summons they &shall reimburse the fruits received and those "hich the
legitimate possessor could have received.
Ar'. 528. 3o))e))+o( a-4u+red +( 1ood ,a+'& doe) (o' lo)e '&+) -&ara-'er e5-e2' +( '&e
-a)e a(d ,ro* '&e *o*e(' ,a-') e5+)' 0&+-& )&o0 '&a' '&e 2o))e))or +) (o' u(a0are
'&a' &e 2o))e))e) '&e '&+(1 +*2ro2erly or 0ro(1,ully. 6735a8
9r'+: v) Fue('abella
FACS!
* 1on 0amon !rti< "as in possession of a parcel of pasture land in the place called Tagas in
the municipality of @an 7ose of said provinceA in area B4 hectares and ,. centaresA bounded
on the north by the rivulet 1acuilan and Calauit$ on the south by the @an 2iguel 0iver$ on the
east by the sea$ and on the "est by the lands of 2ariano (elayo$ 2aria (agueo$ and Gaspar
Codillo.
This possession "as inscribed in the property registry of the (rovince of %mbos Camarines
since %ugust -$ 15,B and stated that 1on 0amon had ;2rov+ded be,ore '&e <u)'+-e o, '&e
2ea-e o, '&a' 'o0( '&e 2o))e))+o( &e &ad &eld o, )a+d la(d ,or ,+,'ee( year) 2rev+ou)ly,
0&e( &e &ad a-4u+red +' by -ul'+va'+(1 +' &+*)el,, 0+'&ou' )e-ur+(1 a(y 0r+''e( '+'le=;
and it "as approved by order of 7uly B$ 15,B. =1892 > 15 ? )+(-e 1877>
- on 2arch 1.$ 1,., 0amon:s daughter sent a letter to 3uentabella as8ing her to desist from
planting coco palms on the lands o"ned by her parents$ being used as pasture land for cattle.
3uentabella ans"ered the letter on 2arch 1,$ 1,., stating that she did not plan to plant on
lands belonging to the !rti<:s.
* %suncion 3uentebella appears in a public document dated 1ecember B,$ 1,.,$ as buyer of
all the land inscribed information$ the vendors being 7uan and @otera Cano =@iblings>. &This
land has been /uietly and peacefully possessed by our late parents for thirty years prior to
this date.& =1,., C 3. D )+(-e 1879>
* %fter this public document$ 0amon !rti< filed complaint for restitution of the possession of
the land and (B.. as damages.
* 3uentebella cited 7uan and @otera Cano in defense of the title. Eer defense is that the
Cano:s possession "as inherited from their parent 3elipe Cano.
* C3F ruled in favor of 3uentebella. !rti< %ppealed.
"))ue! %a) '&e le''er e(ou1& 'o &al' Fue('ebella@) 1ood ,a+'&A
R#L"NG! Be).
* The Cano:s could not 9ustify their sale to 3uentebella. %ccording to their "itness$ 3elipe
possessed a portion =not the "hole> of the land in Tagas$ but not the land in /uestion$ after he
died$ the Cano siblings occupied another portion$ since they moved their residence to the
other side of 2itil cree8$ again no the land in /uestion. Their claim cannot defeat the
inscription of possession for 0amon !rti<.
* Court held that %scuncion:s possession in good faith ended "ith her been made a"are of a
defect in her mode of ac/uisition by "ay of the letter from !rti<:s daughter.
1efendant:s bad faith began after the "arning given in a letter by the plaintiff:s daughter in
2arch$ 1,.,$ for after having received it she then had ground to doubt that @otera and 7uan
Cano could transfer any title of possession in the follo"ing 1ecember.
Art. 528. Possession acquired in good faith does not lose this character except in the case and
from the moment facts exist which show that the possessor is not unaware that he possesses the
thing improperly or wrongfully. (435a
The t"o cases illustrate Ar'. 528. 3o))e))+o( a-4u+red +( 1ood ,a+'& doe) (o' lo)e '&+)
-&ara-'er e5-e2' +( '&e -a)e a(d ,ro* '&e *o*e(' ,a-') e5+)' 0&+-& )&o0 '&a' '&e
2o))e))or +) (o' u(a0are '&a' &e 2o))e))e) '&e '&+(1 +*2ro2erly or 0ro(1,ully.
There is no conflict bet"een the t"o cases$ "hether by letter or summons$ "hat matters is
that the possessor becomes a"are of a defect in his mode of ac/uisition. Gven if possession
"as ac/uired in good faith at the start$ it may become bad faith from the moment the fact can
be proven that the possessor has become a"are of a defect in his possession.
The letter sent by !rti<:s daughter "as clearly proven$ since 3uentebella ans"ered it "ih her
o"n letter. The @ummons given to the Cabrals to ans"er for their possession "as definitely
enough to ma8e them a"are that there "as a contention or possible defect in their possesion.
+y the "ay %rt. 5B5 is "ritten$ it only re/uires a fact to be proven "hich ma8es a person
a"are of a defect. Ft does not re/uire the specific form of such fact to be in letter or even
orally. The problem comes from proving that such fact e;ist and "hether or not it is sufficient
to cause a person to doubt his mode of possession or claim of o"nership. % rumor can be
merely a rumor$ a letter may 9ust be harassment$ it "ould depend on the circumstances of
each case "hether such fact "ould logically have made the possessor6o"ner doubt. This can
be proved based on the strength of the possessor6o"ner:s o"n claim. Fn the case of
3uentebella$ she ac/uired the )and in good faith from the Canos$ but the Canos did not give
her conclusive evidence that they had actual authority to sell the "hole lot or that they had
previously possessed the lot. @o "hen the letter came$ it is logical to conclude that
3uentebella "ould no" have doubt in her o"n claim$ this is further sho"n by her ma8ing a
public instrument after the letter "as received. @o in the !rti< case$ the letter "as sufficient.
!n the other hand$ in the Cabral case$ there can be no doubt that a summons logically means
there is a"areness of a defect in one:s claim.