I. Introduction

In Philippine property law, few conflicts are as recurrent and emotionally charged as the clash between a person who has openly, continuously, and exclusively possessed a parcel of land for decades (the long-time possessor) and another who holds a Deed of Quitclaim executed by the registered owner or his heirs (the quitclaim signatory or grantee).

The dispute almost always arises in one of three factual patterns:

The registered owner, after decades of absence or neglect, suddenly executes a quitclaim in favor of a third person, who then asserts ownership against the long-time possessor.
The long-time possessor himself holds only a quitclaim deed (usually from a co-heir, a previous possessor, or a purported owner) and seeks to consolidate his possession through ordinary acquisitive prescription (10 years).
Both parties trace their claims through quitclaim deeds executed at different times, and the court must determine whose possession ripened into ownership first.

This article exhaustively discusses the legal principles, requirements, jurisprudential rules, and practical outcomes that govern these conflicts under the Civil Code, the Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529), and settled Supreme Court doctrine as of November 2025.

II. Acquisitive Prescription: The Core Weapon of the Long-Time Possessor

Ownership of immovable property may be acquired through prescription in two modes:

A. Ordinary Acquisitive Prescription (Article 1117 in relation to Articles 1129–1131, Civil Code)

Period: 10 years
Requirements:
1. Possession in the concept of owner (en concepto de dueño)
2. Public, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession
3. Good faith
4. Just title

Good faith consists in the reasonable belief that the person who transferred the thing was the owner and could transmit ownership (Article 1127).

Just title must be a true and valid title sufficient to transfer ownership if the grantor had been the true owner (Article 1130). It must be proven to exist; it cannot be merely presumed.

B. Extraordinary Acquisitive Prescription (Article 1137, Civil Code)

Period: 30 years
Requirements: Only possession in the concept of owner that is public, peaceful, uninterrupted, and adverse.
Good faith and just title are NOT required.

Supreme Court ruling as early as Director of Lands v. Buyco (1993) and repeatedly affirmed up to Heirs of Maligaya v. Oasis Realty (2024): Registered land under the Torrens system is not exempt from either ordinary or extraordinary prescription. The indefeasibility of Torrens title yields to the completed period of acquisitive prescription.

III. The Deed of Quitclaim (Kasulatan ng Pagwawaksi ng Karapatan): Nature and Effects

A Deed of Quitclaim is a unilateral act whereby the signatory renounces or waives whatever right, interest, or claim he may have over the property in favor of the grantee.

Key characteristics:

It conveys only the interest that the quitclaimor actually has at the time of execution. If the quitclaimor has no right, nothing passes (nemo dat quod non habet).
It is not a conveyance of title by onerous or lucrative cause in the strict sense; it is a release or waiver.
It is commonly executed when the signatory is unsure of his rights (e.g., co-heirs settling an estate extrajudicially, or a registered owner “cleaning up” possible adverse claims).
It is valid and binding between the parties and their successors-in-interest.

Quitclaim as “Just Title” for Ordinary Prescription

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled since Toledo v. Hyndman (1924), through Pangilinan v. Aguilar (1988), Carino v. CA (1999), and up to the 2023 case of Spouses Reyes v. Spouses Perez (G.R. No. 243789) that:

A Deed of Quitclaim, when executed in a public instrument and containing words of conveyance (“I hereby waive, quitclaim, and transfer all my rights, interest, and participation…”), constitutes just title (titulo colorado) for purposes of ordinary acquisitive prescription, even if the quitclaimor had no valid title to convey.

Reason: The possessor who receives such a deed has a reasonable basis to believe that ownership was transmitted to him.

Therefore, a person who possesses land for 10 years under a notarized quitclaim deed from anyone (even a non-owner) can acquire ownership by ordinary prescription, provided the other requisites concur.

IV. When the Long-Time Possessor Prevails Over the Quitclaim Grantee

Scenario 1: The 30-year possessor vs. a quitclaim executed by the registered owner after the prescriptive period has already run

Once 30 years of adverse possession have elapsed, ownership has already vested in the possessor by operation of law (Article 1137). The registered owner is divested of title even without judicial declaration in most cases (although a quieting of title action is advisable).

Any quitclaim subsequently executed by the former registered owner transfers nothing. The quitclaim grantee acquires no right and can be ejected in an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria filed by the possessor who has become owner.

Leading cases:

Heirs of Susana de Guzman v. Pereda (G.R. No. 182360, 28 June 2017, reiterated 2022–2024)
Maligaya v. Oasis Realty Development, Inc. (G.R. No. 224673, 15 February 2024)

Scenario 2: The 10-year possessor with quitclaim vs. the registered owner who never possessed the land

If the possessor has a notarized quitclaim (just title) + good faith + 10 years of possession in concept of owner, ownership vests in him even against the registered owner.

The registered owner who slept on his rights for 10 years loses his title. This is the most common situation in rural areas where tax-declared lots were sold via quitclaim decades ago.

Cases:

Spouses Rosario v. Spouses Alvar (G.R. No. 212731, 5 October 2020)
Heirs of Jose Juanite v. Heirs of Bernardo (G.R. No. 237438, 18 August 2023)

Scenario 3: The possessor has been in possession for more than 10 but less than 30 years, with quitclaim, in good faith

He prevails via ordinary prescription against any subsequent quitclaim grantee of the registered owner.

V. When the Quitclaim Grantee Prevails Over the Long-Time Possessor

Scenario A: The quitclaim is executed by the registered owner and immediately registered; the possessor’s possession is merely tolerated or by mere tolerance

If the long-time possessor entered the land with permission of the owner (e.g., as caretaker, lessee, or by tolerance), his possession is not in the concept of owner and is not adverse. Prescription does not run.

Classic example: A child or relative allowed to build a house on family land. Even 50 years of possession by tolerance does not ripen into ownership.

Cases:

Heirs of Roman Soriano v. CA (G.R. No. 128177, 15 August 2001)
Spouses Yu v. Spouses de Lara (G.R. No. 227703, 9 November 2020)

Scenario B: The quitclaim grantee is an innocent purchaser for value who registers the quitclaim first

If the quitclaim from the registered owner is registered before the possessor files any action or annotates his claim, the quitclaim grantee becomes the new registered owner. The Torrens title becomes indefeasible as against the possessor unless the latter proves fraud and registers a notice of lis pendens before the quitclaim is registered.

However, if the possessor has already completed the prescriptive period before the quitclaim is registered, registration by the quitclaim grantee is ineffective because the registered owner had already lost ownership.

Scenario C: The possessor’s quitclaim comes from a non-owner, and the registered owner executes a quitclaim to a third person who registers it

If the possessor has not yet completed 10 or 30 years, the registered quitclaim grantee prevails, subject to the possessor’s right to continue possessing until the prescriptive period is completed (prescription continues to run even against the new owner).

VI. Crucial Doctrinal Rules Applied by the Supreme Court (2020–2025)

Possession by tolerance never ripens into ownership, no matter how long (repeatedly affirmed up to 2025).
Tacking of possession is allowed (Article 1138). Successive possessors under quitclaim deeds may add their periods of possession.
Good faith is presumed; the burden is on the registered owner to prove bad faith.
Payment of real estate taxes, while not indispensable, is the strongest evidence of possession in concept of owner.
A quitclaim deed executed by only some co-heirs does not bind the non-signatories; possession under such partial quitclaim may still ripen into ownership against the signatories but not against non-signatories unless 30 years have passed.
Laches may bar the registered owner who slept on his rights for an unreasonable time (Wee v. Mardo, G.R. No. 202414, 2014, still good law).

VII. Practical Remedies and Strategies

For the long-time possessor:

File an action for quieting of title with prayer for declaration of ownership by prescription (Rule 63, Rules of Court in relation to Articles 476–487, Civil Code).
Seek immediate annotation of lis pendens.
Secure a certified true copy of the title and check for adverse annotations.

For the quitclaim grantee:

Register the quitclaim immediately and pay the corresponding taxes.
File an accion reivindicatoria or unlawful detainer if possession is recent.
Prove that the possessor’s entry was by mere tolerance.

VIII. Conclusion

Under Philippine law, the long-time possessor almost always has the superior right when his possession has been in the concept of owner, public, peaceful, and adverse for the required period—whether 10 years with a quitclaim deed (ordinary prescription) or 30 years without need of title or good faith (extraordinary prescription).

A quitclaim deed executed by the registered owner after the prescriptive period has run is worthless. Conversely, a possessor whose entry was by mere tolerance, or who has not completed the required period, will lose against a registered quitclaim grantee who acts promptly.

The decisive factors are always: (1) the nature and duration of possession, (2) the presence or absence of just title and good faith, and (3) the timing of registration and judicial action.

In the final analysis, Philippine jurisprudence has consistently favored the tiller, the builder, the actual occupant who has treated the land as his own for decades over the absentee registered owner who suddenly remembers his title when the land becomes valuable. The law, in this respect, remains profoundly equitable.