Possession, to constitute a foundation of a prescriptive right,must be en concepto dueno,or, to use the common lawequivalent of the term, that possession should be adverse, ifnot, such possessory acts, no matter how long, do not startthe running of the period of prescription.11In Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals12where it was proven that thepossessor of the property held the property by virtue of acontract of antichresis, the Supreme Court ruled thus: This court has on several occasions held that the antichreticcreditor cannot ordinarily acquire by prescription the landsurrendered to him by the debtor (Trillana vs. Manansala, etal., 96 Phil. 865; Valencia vs. Acala,42 Phil. 177; Barretovs. Barreto, 3 Phil. 234). The petitioners are not possessorsin the concept of owners. Thus, their possession cannotserve as a title for acquiring dominion (See Art. 540, CivilCode).InRepublic vs. Court of Appeals,6involving the possession ofthe United States Navy of a particular property for recreationalpurposes only, the Supreme Court rejected any contention forprescription to . 1118apply. The pertinent portions of the decision are as follows:The finding of respondent court revealed that, during theinterim of 57 years from November 26, 1902 to December17, 1959 (when the U.S. Navy possessed the area), the11 Marcelo,et al.vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131803, April 14, 1999, 105 SCAD 561 , 305SCRA 800. 12 G.R. No. L-38185, September 24, 1986, 144 SCRA 292.
28ObligatiOnsandCOntraCts Text and Cases possessory rights of Baloy or his heirs were merelysuspended and not lost by prescription, is supported byExhibit “U,” a communication or letter No. 1108-63, datedJune 24, 1963, which contains an official statementregarding the position of the Republic of the Philippineswith regard to the status of the land in question. Said letterrecognizes the fact that Domingo Baloy and/or his heirs,have been in continuous possession of said land since 1894as attested by an “Informacion Possessoria” Title, whichwas granted by the Spanish Government. Hence, thedisputed property is private land and this possession wasonly interrupted only by the occupation of the land by theU.S. Navy in 1945 for recreational purposes. However, theU.S. Navy eventually abandoned the premises. The heirs ofthe late Domingo P. Baloy, are presently in actualpossession, and has been in possession since theabandonment by the U.S. Navy. A new recreation area ispresently being used by the U.S. Navy personnel and suchplace is remote from the land in question.Clearly, the occupancy of the U.S. Navy was not in theconcept of owner. It partakes of the character ofcommodatum. It cannot therefore militate against the title ofDomingo Baloy and his successors-in-interest. One’sownership of a thing may be lost through prescription byreason of another’s possession, provided that suchpossession is under a claim of ownership, and not where thepossession is only intended to be transient, as in the case ofthe U.S. Navy’s occupation of the land concerned, in whichcase the owner is not divested of his title, however, it cannotbe exercised in the meantime.