G.

STARE DECISIS

NCC Art. 8: Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a
part of the legal system of the Philippines.

Virtucio v Alegarbes,
G.R. No. 187451,
August 29, 2012

KANG
FACTS:
 1949, Alegarbes filed a homestead application (no. V- 33203) for a 24-hectare tract of unsurveyed land in
Banan.
 1952, Approved.
 1955, the land was subdivided into 3 (lot no. 138, 139, and 140)
o Wherein, Custodio and Virtucio applied for homestead (no. 18-4493 and no. 18-4421) to lot no.
139 and 140 respectively.
 However, Alegarbes denied the abovementioned homestead applications.
 1961, Director of Lands rendered decision that only lot no. 138 is given due course for Alegarbes, and lot
nos. 139 and 140 to Custodio and Virtucio respectively.
 1967, Alegarbes had several appeals: 1. Secretary of Agricultural and Natural Resources, 2. Office of the
President. But it was denied. Motions for reconsideration was also denied.
 1989, Alegarbes refused the order of execution; which was to vacate the subject land.
 1997, Virtucio filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Preliminary injunction
before the RTC.
 RTC favored Virtucio; finds plaintiff and against the defendant.
 2009, CA ruling was the reverse the decision of the RTC. Which they claimed that: with 30 years of
ownership (good intentions) Alegarbes was the ipso jure owner of the lot no. 140. Moreover, attorney’s
fee, litigation expenses, were deleted.

ISSUE:

W/N Alegarbes acquired ownership over the subject property by acquisitive prescription

HELD: Petition must fail. Since the rulings of both CA and the RTC is contrary, the court has to review the facts for
conclusion.
Under Art. 1106 of the NCC, and Art. 712, Alegarbes falls under extraordinary acquisitive prescription;
uninterrupted adverse possession over 30 years without the need of title and,or good faith. CA has approved the
said statement. Court, with the perusal of the records, would reveal that no issuance of any patent in favor of
either parties: the subject to controversy remains to be in name of the state. However, it is proven that Alegarbes
is in possession of the land for 40 years (1949-) even before Virtucio.
The Court agrees with the position of Alegarbes that by Virtucio’s insistence that it was erroneous for the CA to
disregard its earlier decision in CA - G.R CV. 26286, he, in effect, calls upon the court to adhere to that decision by
invoking the stare decisis principle. Which is not legally possible because only final decisions of the court are
considered precedents. THEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.