Dear PAO,
My parents allowed Y to stay on one of our lands in the province, which is covered by a title. This arrangement continued until my parents’ demise last month. My brother and I have agreed to convert the land into a commercial space, so we informed Y to vacate the property. He, however, asserted that he owns the land because he has possessed it for 30 years. Did Y acquire ownership of our property by possessing it for that period, or by mere tolerance?
Bastachu
Dear Bastachu,
Generally speaking, registered land cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. This is in consonance with Section 47 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 or otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, which provides that:
“No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.”
Possession by tolerance is deemed included in the above-stated provision of the law. The concept of tolerance was explained in Go, et. al. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Perez, G.R. No. 142276, August 14, 2001, which was penned by Associate Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes, in this wise:
“Acts merely tolerated are those which by reason of neighborliness or familiarity, the owner of property allows his neighbor or another person to do on the property; they are generally those particular services or benefits which one's property can give to another without material injury or prejudice to the owner, who permits them out of friendship or courtesy. They are acts of little disturbances which a person, in the interest of neighborliness or friendly relations, permits others to do on his property, such as passing over the land, tying a horse therein, or getting some water from the well. Although this is continued for a long time, no right will be acquired by prescription.”
Since the land occupied by Y is registered, the same cannot be acquired by mere possession. This finds support in the pronouncement of the court in the case of Heirs of Spouses Cardenas vs. The Christian and Missionary Alliance Churches of the Philippines, G.R. No. 222614, March 20, 2019, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, stated that:
“By express provision of Section 47 of P.D. 1529, no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. xxx
“In Umbay v. Alecha, the Court explained that the right to recover possession of registered land is imprescriptible on the part of the registered owner because possession is a mere consequence of ownership. Moreover, the Court also explained that prescription is unavailing, not only against the registered owner, but also against his hereditary successors because the latter merely step into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law and are merely the continuation of the personality of their predecessor-in-interest.”
Applying the above-quoted decision to your situation, a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the property. The ownership over a registered land shall not accrue in favor of an occupant by mere tolerance, no matter how long the possession is and even as against the heirs of the original owner. Prescription as a mode of acquiring ownership is unavailing when it comes to registered land. Thus, Y did not acquire ownership over the registered land of your parents by just possessing the same for 30 years.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
