G.R. No. 119879 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the partition of the land in question, i.e., Lot No. 4389 of the Dumaguete Cadastre, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 2986-A, in the names of Felix Gaudiane and his sister Juana Gaudiane, consisting of 36,988 square meters, between the plaintiffs and the defendants in the following proportion: one-half (1/2) share will go to the heirs of the late Felix Gaudiane, (1/2) share will go to the heirs of the late Juana Gaudiane, defendants herein. The defendants who are in possession of the subject property are likewise directed within thirty (30) days from receipt of this decision to make an accounting of the rents and profits they may have obtained from the real estate in question, from the time this action was instituted, and to remit to plaintiffs their proportionate one-half (1/2) share thereof. [5] According to the trial court, Felix did not sell to Juana his one-half share in Lot 4389. The Escritura clearly stated and described that what was sold was Lot 4156, not Lot 4389. Had it been his intention to include Lot 4389, he would have so identified and described it in the deed of sale. The fact that the title to Lot 4389 was still in the names of siblings Felix and Juana was proof that the subject lot continued to be under their co-ownership. The trial court refused to give weight to the tax declarations supposedly evidencing petitioners exercise of ownership over said lot after discovering that said declarations did not state the lot number or the certificate of title number. The trial court also ruled that the dismissal of petitioners second case for quieting of title due to failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders had the effect of adjudication on the merits, pursuant to the Rules of Court. Consequently, petitioners claim of exclusive ownership over Lot 4389 was without merit because it was barred by the order of dismissal dated January 10, 1985 in Civil Case No. 6817. As to whether the respondents lost by prescription their right to their share in the lot, the trial court held that a title, once registered, could not be defeated even by adverse, open and notorious possession. Laches did not also set in because, when petitioners repudiated the respondents share in the second case for quieting of title, the latter immediately opposed the move. They were therefore never negligent in pursuing their rights. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. [6] The appellate court reiterated the reasons of the trial court in holding that Felix never sold his share in Lot 4389 to Juana. The order of dismissal of the action for quieting of title was not appealed and therefore the issues raised therein involving the same lot could not be raised in the subject action anymore. Lastly, according to the Court of Appeals, the doctrine that a titled lot may be acquired by prescription in certain exceptional circumstances could not apply in the case