ESSO STANDARD EASTERN V.

LIM (1983)
Topic: Modes of acquiring ownership; just title
Presented by: Maria Analyn Ilagan
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION

Whether or not Lim was able to show just title over the land in order to validly assail the
reconstituted title of Esso Standard – NO

Esso Standard filed a petition for reconstitution of its title; the court granted the same. Lim
assailed the validity of the reconstitution proceedings.
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION

• NCC 714: occupation of land

• NCC 541: possessor in concept of owner enjoys legal presumption that he has just title
• NCC 1131: for prescription, just title must be proved; it is never presumed
• NCC 1117: acquisitive prescription
• NCC 1129. for prescription, when is there just title
• RA 26: requirements for reconstitution (old law)
• Smith Bell & Co., v. Director of Lands: discrepancies between old and new surveys are
attributed to the improvements in surveying capabilities of the land agencies
• Government v. Abaja: inexperience of surveyors caused errors in survey plans
• Santiago Syjuyo v. PNB, Pecson v. Reyes: lack of notice renders the reconstitution
proceedings void
• City of Legazpi v. A.L. Ammen: lack of notice to those with interest in the property does not
affect validity of proceedings if there is publication in the Official Gazette
• Miguel v. Catalino, Buenaventura v. David, Edralin v. Edralin: application of laches
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION

Property in dispute:
20,000 sqm urban land valued at Php 2M located in La Union;
property is divided into four lots
Appellant: Appellee:
Alfonso Lim Esso Standard Eastern Inc.
(now PetroPhil Corp., formerly known as
Standard Oil Company of New York,
Standard Vacuum Oil Company)
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION

1 ORIGINAL OWNERSHIP
• The land was originally owned by Flores who then sold it Rivera. Rivera and Salanga had common ownership over the land; they had
secured title for the four lots.
• Rivera and Salanga applied for reconstitution of their titles because WW2 destroyed all the OCTs and other pertinent records.
• Based on salvaged records of the Commissioner of Land Registration, there was a decree which covered Lots 1-3 registered under Rivera
and Salanga. However, with the absence of other records, it cannot be ascertained in whose favor Lot 4 was originally decreed. But the
Commissioner ruled that the plan submitted by Rivera and Salanga were verified correct to represent their claim over Lot 4.

2 SALE TO ESSO STANDARD

• Rivera and Salanga sold the whole property to Esso Standard.

3 RECONSTITUTION PROCEEDING
• Esso Standard filed a petition for reconstitution of title covering Lot 4. It alleged that the OCT was lost and destroyed during the war. It
submitted a technical plan, with the technical description shown an area of 20,057 sqm although the plan mentioned in the notice of
hearing only had exactly 20,000 sqm.
• CFI granted the petition for reconstitution. A reconstituted title was issued in favor of Standard; the OCT covered 20,057 sqm.
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
4 ACCION PUBLICIANA CASE AGAINST LIM
• Esso alleged that in or prior to 1955 (when it filed its petition for reconstitution), Lim began occupying ¾ of the land without its knowledge
and consent.
• Lim interposed the defense that the OCT held by Esso is null and void; Esso was also guilty of laches.

ANNULMENT OF RECONSTITUTION PROCEEDINGS

• Lim filed a case for the annulment of the reconstituted OCT and for declaration that he was the lawful owner of the land.

INTERVENTION OF THE GOVERNMENT

• It maintained that it was the owner of the land because of the findings of the Commissioner of Land. It anchored its argument on the
Commissioner’s findings that it cannot be determined exactly under whose name Lot 4 was decreed. It also emphasized the area
discrepancies between the original plan and the plan presented by Esso.

5 MOTION TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

• When the cases were submitted for decision, Lim filed a motion to receive additional evidence on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
He alleged that he has new evidence consisting of testimony of a certain Atty. Vergara who claimed to have prepared the documents for
the exchange of property between Esso and North American Trading.

6 CFI RULING IN FAVOR OF ESSO

• CFI ruled that Esso is the registered owner of the land, ordering Lim to vacate the property and pay rentals, costs, and attorney’s fees. The
complaint in intervention of the Republic is also dismissed. Lim’s motion to received additional evidence was also denied based on hearsay.
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION
Lim
As to validity of reconstitution:
 The reconstitution was invalid because there
was absolutely no proven title to reconstitute.
 The lower court erred in holding that Lot
4 in the original plan was the same as
Lot 4 in the plan presented by Esso. The
57 sqm discrepancy between the two
plans points to the presence of fraud.
 No notice was given to him despite Esso’s
knowledge that he was in actual
possession and occupation of the
property.
 Esso had no interest over the property
because sometime in 1936 it exchanged
the property with another parcel of land
owned by North American Trading and
Export Company.
 He acquired the property through acquisitive
prescription.
ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION
Republic
 The lower court erred in holding that Esso had
a valid title to the land.
 The land in question was abandoned and
therefore should belong to the public domain.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
Esso Standard Eastern/Standard Vacuum Oil
 The property was brought under the operation
of the Land Registration Act; ownership then
became imprescriptible.
 Lim failed to show a just title to the property.
He merely relies on NCC 541 and
conveniently disregards NCC 1131.
 Lim’s occupation started after the Esso’s title
was reconstituted. His possession was in bad
faith.
 His possession could not have been in the
concept of owner because he acquired no real
or imaginary title. His possession also was not
continuous.
 He was aware that Esso owned the property.
He acknowledged the same in his conversation
with his counsel.
 He only declared the land for taxation
purposes after extra-judicial demands had
been made for him to vacate.
 He kept silent when a portion of the land was
expropriated for a road.
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
Lim Republic Esso Standard Eastern/Standard Vacuum Oil
As to laches:  Mere possession of Lim does not entitle him to
 Laches should apply to Esso. assert the defense of laches.

As to new evidence:
 The lower court erred in denying the motion to  The lower court erred in denying the motion to
receive additional evidence. receive additional evidence.
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
On the basis of Property law, Appellee Esso Standard has stronger arguments because:

As to the validity of reconstitution:

• In reconstitution proceedings, being in rem in nature, the order becomes final and unassailable. The findings of the court in
a reconstitution proceeding can no longer be opened for review.
• Esso was able to show its valid title over the land. It was able to show that its owner’s duplicate title was lost when its
building was burned; the original title was also lost when the office of the Register of Deeds was burned. Both accidents
happened during WW2.
• Lim failed to show a just title to the property. He merely relies on NCC 541 and conveniently disregards NCC 1131.
• NCC 714: The ownership of a piece of land cannot be acquired by occupation.
• NCC 541: A possessor in the concept of owner has in his favor the legal presumption that he possesses with a
just title and he cannot be obliged to show or prove it.
• NCC 1131: For the purposes of prescription, just title must be proved; it is never presumed.
• NCC 1117: Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real rights may be ordinary or extraordinary.
Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession of things in good faith and with just title for the time fixed
by law. (1940a)
• NCC 1129: For the purposes of prescription, there is just title when the adverse claimant came into possession of
the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights,
but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right. (n)
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
On the basis of Property law, Appellee Esso Standard has stronger arguments because:

As to the validity of reconstitution:

• As to the 57 sqm discrepancy, during trial, counsel for both parties stipulated that the respective Lot 4s of the plans were
actually similar, with the 57 sqm discrepancy attributed to the improvements in surveying capabilities.
• This is binding on Lim. A final court decision cannot be undone solely on the basis of an inconsequential detail as a 57
sqm discrepancy in a 2 hectare land.
• In the cases of Smith Bell and Abaja, the Court already emphasized that these discrepancies are attributed
improvements in surveying capabilities.
• As to the lack of notice, the Court held that Lim cannot assail to reconstitution of Esso’s tile on this ground.
• Lim was not able to establish how he acquired ownership of the land. He admitted that he merely occupied the land upon
learning that no one was occupying it. In short, he was a mere squatter. Having no valid rights over the land, he suffered
no damages and therefore cannot assail the reconstitution of the title.
As to laches:
• When Esso file the case for accion publiciana, there were already several demands for Lim to vacate the property.
• The principle of laches requires that there should be delay in asserting the complainant’s right, the complainant having
knowledge or notice of the defendant’s conduct and having the opportunity to institute a suit.
• In this case, delay is counted not from the date of sale but from the date Lim entered the property.
As to new evidence:
• The testimony of Atty. Vergara could have been produced during trial had Lim exercised due diligence.