FACTS:

The subject of controversy in this case are two adjacent parcels of land located in Barangay Calzada, Municipality of Taguig. The first parcel, known as Lot 1, has an area of 686 square meters and was originally declared in the name of Jose Gabriel. The second parcel, known as Lot 2, consists of 147 square meters and was originally declared in the name of Agueda Dinguinbayan. Both parcels of land remained undeveloped and uninhabited for several years.

The petitioners, heirs of Bienvenido and Araceli Tanyag, claimed that Lot 1 was owned by Benita Gabriel, sister of Jose Gabriel, as part of her inheritance. Benita Gabriel sold the said property to Gabriel Sulit and Cornelia Sanga in a notarized instrument in 1944. Lot 1 allegedly came into the possession of Florencia Gabriel Sulit, Benita Gabriel's daughter, when Gabriel Sulit gave it to her. Florencia Sulit later sold Lot 1 to Bienvenido Tanyag, father of the petitioners, in 1964.

As for Lot 2, petitioners claimed that it was sold by Agueda Dinguinbayan to Araceli Tanyag in 1968. Petitioners took possession of the property and declared it for tax purposes.

On the other hand, respondents, who are the children and grandchildren of Jose Gabriel, secured a tax declaration in Jose Gabriel's name in 1979, indicating an increased area of 1,763 square meters for Lot 1. They claimed that they are the rightful owners of Lot 1 and 2.

Petitioners asserted that they have continuously, publicly, notoriously, and adversely occupied both Lots 1 and 2 through their caretaker Juana Quinones. They fenced the premises and introduced improvements on the land.

The case involves a dispute over a piece of property. The defendant, Florencia Sulit, claims to have been in possession of the property since 1964 and had been living alone on the property. She testified that nobody else claimed the property and she had not received any notice or conducted any survey on the land.

A witness for the plaintiffs, Angelita Sulit-delos Santos, testified that she knew about the property because her paternal grandfather had mortgaged it to him. She identified the signature of her maternal grandmother, Benita Gabriel, in the 1944 Affidavit of Sale in favor of Gabriel Sulit. She also stated that her father and uncle were in charge of their property.

The first witness for the defendants, Roberto Gabriel Arnedo, testified that he used to visit the property with his grandfather when he was a child. He recalled that the property consisted of 1,763 square meters and was visited for picnics and celebrations. He claimed that his grandfather did not mention the claim of the plaintiffs over the land.

Another witness for the defendants, Virginia Villanueva, testified that they acquired the property from their grandfather, Jose Gabriel, who had a tax declaration in his name. She stated that her mother provided them with documents such as tax declarations and an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Jose Gabriel.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the respondents have sufficient evidence to establish their ownership over the subject property.

2. Whether or not the petitioners received notice of the proceedings for the application for titling filed by the respondents.

3. Whether respondents committed fraud and bad faith in registering the subject lots in their name.

4. Whether petitioners acquired the property through acquisitive prescription.

5. Whether the possession of the petitioners meets the requirements for acquisitive prescription.

6. Whether the acts of the respondents effectively interrupted the possession of the petitioners.

7. Whether petitioners were able to prove the identity of the land claimed.

8. Whether petitioners were able to prove their title to the land claimed.

RULING:

1. The respondents have presented sufficient evidence to establish their ownership over the subject property. They presented testimonies from witnesses who confirmed that Jose Gabriel, the respondents' grandfather, owned and planted on the land. They also presented tax declarations and documents showing the transfer of the property to them. The Municipal Assessor of Taguig also testified to the property being in the name of Jose Gabriel in the Bureau of Lands and Municipal Assessor's Office. The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that the respondents had successfully proven their ownership.

2. The petitioners failed to establish that they received notice of the proceedings for the application for titling filed by the respondents. The Court considered the testimonies of the rebuttal witnesses who stated that they did not receive any notice of the proceedings. The failure of the petitioners to receive notice did not invalidate the titling proceedings.

3. The Court held that for an action for reconveyance based on fraud to prosper, the party seeking reconveyance must prove by clear and convincing evidence his title to the property and the fact of fraud. In this case, the evidence presented by petitioners was insufficient to prove fraud and bad faith on the part of respondents in registering the subject lots in their name. Therefore, the Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the respondents did not commit fraud in registering the subject lots in their name.

4. The Court found that the CA was mistaken in concluding that petitioners have not acquired any right over the subject property simply because they failed to establish Benita Gabriel's title over said property. The appellate court ignored petitioners' evidence of possession that complies with the legal requirements of acquiring ownership by prescription. Therefore, the Court remanded the case to the CA for the determination of whether petitioners have acquired ownership of the subject property through acquisitive prescription.

5. The court ruled that the possession of the petitioners meets the requirements for acquisitive prescription. Possession must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted. It must be open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious. The party asserting ownership by adverse possession must prove the presence of these essential elements. In this case, the petitioners' possession of the property, as evidenced by tax receipts and declarations, as well as their acts of ownership such as selling a portion of the property, satisfied the requirements for acquisitive prescription.

6. The court held that the acts of the respondents did not effectively interrupt the possession of the petitioners. Civil interruption in prescription is produced by judicial summons to the possessor. The mere filing of a Notice of Adverse Claim does not interrupt possession. In this case, the Notice of Adverse Claim filed by the petitioners did not toll or interrupt the running of the prescriptive period because there was no compliance with the requirement of receiving judicial summons. As a result, the petitioners were able to acquire ownership through acquisitive prescription despite the acts of the respondents.

7. Petitioners failed to prove the identity of the land claimed by providing evidence of the metes and bounds thereof.

8. Petitioners were able to prove their title to a portion of the land claimed, consisting of 686 square meters. They are therefore declared the owners of this portion and respondents are ordered to reconvey it to them.

PRINCIPLES:

• The tax declaration is not necessarily proof of ownership or possession of the property it covers.

• Notice is an essential element of due process.

• Registration of a piece of land under the Torrens System does not create or vest title; it is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein.

• Reconveyance does not set aside or re-subject to review the findings of fact of the Bureau of Lands, but seeks to transfer the property or its title wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person's name to its rightful or legal owner.

• An action for annulment of title or reconveyance based on fraud is imprescriptible when the plaintiff is in possession of the property subject of the acts.

• The party seeking reconveyance must prove by clear and convincing evidence their title to the property and the fact of fraud.

• Acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership by a possessor through the requisite lapse of time.

• Acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership through the lapse of time and possession in the concept of an owner.

• Possession for purposes of acquisitive prescription must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted.

• Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious, and not clandestine. It is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken, and not intermittent or occasional. It is exclusive when the adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it for their own use and benefit. It is notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked about by the public or the people in the neighborhood.

• Possession of land, as evidenced by tax receipts and declarations, can be prima facie proof of ownership or possession.

• Civil interruption in prescription is produced by judicial summons to the possessor. Mere filing of a Notice of Adverse Claim does not interrupt possession and toll the prescriptive period.

• Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, to maintain an action to recover ownership of real property, the claimant must prove the identity of the land claimed and their title thereto.

• In an accion reinvindicatoria, the claimant must first fix the identity of the land by describing its location, area, and boundaries.