Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mt. Province vs.

Court of Appeals
J. Gancayco September 21, 1988 G.R. No. 80294-95
Doctrine Commodatum; a bailee’s failure to return the subject matter of the commodatum does not equal adverse
possession by him, as he holds in trust the property subject of commodatum.
Summary Petitioner questions the CA Decision ordering him to return Lots 2 & 3 to the private respondents, arguing that
a previous decision should not be considered res judicata in his case. The Supreme Court held that there was
really no error in the CA’s Decision, and that it does constitute res judicata on the present cases.
Facts  The Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mt. Province filed for registration over Lots 1-4 in La Trinidad,
Benguet, as they were the sites of the church building, convents, high school building, school
gymnasium, dormitories, etc. The land registration court confirming the registrable title of Vicar to the
said lots.
 The heirs of Juan Valdez and the heirs of Egmidio Octaviano appealed the decision to the CA, which
reversed the land registration court’s decision regarding Lots 2 and 3. The Vicar thus filed a petition for
review on certiorari to the SC. The heirs also filed an MR to the CA, asking for an order of registration
regarding the two lots, but this was denied. Thus they also filed a petition for review in the SC.
 The SC denied both petitions in a minute resolution. The heirs filed with the CFI for execution of the CA
judgment, but this was denied on the ground that there was no affirmative relief granted. The CA also
dismissed the appeal. Hence, the current case.
 During trial, the heirs of Octaviano presented a witness (Valdez) who testified that Octaviano
demanded that the Vicar return the land to him with reasonable rentals of P10k/mo. The Vicar, on the
other hand, said that the land was not covered by any title in the name of Octaviano.
Ratio/Issues
I. W/N the CA’s Decision promulgated a long time ago can be considered res judicata in the
present cases (YES)
(1) It was clearly held in the earlier case that private respondents were not positively declared
owners of the land, neither were they declared not owners of the land. Rather, their predecessors
were possessors of Lots 2 & 3, with claim of ownership in good faith from 1906 to 1951. Petitioner
was a borrower in commodatum up to 1951, when it repudiated the trust by declaring the
properties in its name for taxation purposes. Thus, it had been in possession in the concept of
owner for only 11 years. Extraordinary acquisitive prescription requires 30 years.
(2) Such findings are res judicata and can no longer be altered by presentation of evidence, as they
had been resolved with finality long ago. In the present case, petitioner still did not meet the
requirement for acquisitive prescription, and there was no documentary evidence regarding the
alleged sale of the lots to Vicar.
(3) Respondents were able to prove that their predecessors house was borrowed by Vicar after the
church and convent were destroyed. They never asked for its return and merely allowed its free
use, thus becoming bailors in commodatum. As bailee, petitioner’s failure to return the subject
matter does not mean adverse possession by him, as he holds in trust the property subject of
commodatum. There is no reason to disregard or reverse the findings of the CA. It did not commit
any reversible error when it held that its previous decision governed

Held Petiition is DENIED. CA Decision is AFFIRMED, costs against petitioner.

Prepared by: VJ Dominguez (Credit Transactions | Prof. Vasquez)