Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1985 > March 1985 Decisions > G.R. No. 67284 March 18, 1985 - TEOFISTO UMBAY v. PLACIDO ALECHA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 67284. March 18, 1985.]

TEOFISTO, FELICISIMO and MAXIMO, all surnamed UMBAY, and FILOMENA, FRANCISCO, SUSANA, CELERINA and JOSEFA, all surnamed ENANORIA, Petitioners, v. PLACIDO ALECHA, NICOLASA LABAJO and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; LAND TITLES AND DEEDS; LAND REGISTRATION LAW; RIGHT TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF REGISTERED LAND DOES NOT PRESCRIBED. — We hold that the action of the heirs of Enanoria to recover the 500 square meters portion of their registered land does not prescribe and cannot be barred by laches. Nor can Alecha, the adjacent owner, acquire that 500-square-meter area by prescription because it is covered by a Torrens title. The right to recover possession of registered land is imprescriptible because possession is a mere consequence of ownership (Atun v. Nuñez, 97 Phil. 762; Manlapas and Tolentino v. Llorente, 48 Phil. 298, 308; J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Aguirre, 117 Phil. 110, 113-114).

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REGISTERED LAND CANNOT BE ACQUIRED BY PRESCRIPTION OR ADVERSE POSSESSION. — Section 46 of the Land Registration Law, now section 47 of the Property Registration Decree (PD No. 1529 effective June 11, 1978), provides that "no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; PRESCRIPTION; UNAVAILING NOT ONLY AGAINST THE REGISTERED OWNER BUT ALSO AGAINST HIS SUCCESSOR. — Prescription is unavailing not only against the registered owner but also against his hereditary successors because the latter merely step into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law and are merely the continuation of the personality of their predecessor-in-interest (Barcelona v. Barcelona, 100 Phil. 251, 257).

4. ID.; LAND TITLES AND DEEDS; LAND REGISTRATION LAW; PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION. — As stated by Justice Johnson in the 1915 case of Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590 the real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality. "Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the ‘mirador de su casa’, to avoid the possibility of losing his land."cralaw virtua1aw library

5. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL ACTIONS; ACTION TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF REGISTERED LAND; NOT BARRED BY LACHES. — In this case, the petitioners’ action to recover the 500 square meters cannot be barred by the equitable defense of laches or delay because they because aware of the encroachment only after they hired a surveyor in 1963 to ascertain the true area and boundaries of Lot No. 5280. Laches presupposes waiver of one’s right. There was no waiver in this case. The petitioners, poor, ignorant rustics, never intended to renounce their right to the 500 square meters.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


This case is about the right of the heirs of the registered owner of a parcel of land with an area of 2,265 square meters to recover a portion thereof with an area of 500 square meters allegedly usurped by the adjoining owner.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Natalio Enanoria was the owner of Lot No. 5280 located in the mountain of Barrio Valencia, Carcar, Cebu. His title is OCT No. 10933 issued in 1922 (Exh. A). He died in 1924. In 1963 his heirs asked a surveyor to relocate the lot. They discovered that its 500-square-meter portion was occupied by Placido Alecha, the owner of the adjoining Lot No. 5281 which is its southeastern boundary (Exh. B).

Alecha refused to vacate the disputed portion. He removed the concrete monuments (Exh. B-3). The heirs sued Alecha. Another relocation made by a surveyor from the Bureau of Lands appointed by the trial court confirmed the usurpation of 500 square meters (p. 42, Rollo).

The trial court ordered Alecha and his wife to vacate the said 500-square-meter portion. The Appellate Court reversed that decision and dismissed the complaint of the Enanoria heirs. They appealed to this Court. Alecha did not file any appellee’s brief.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

We hold that the action of the heirs of Enanoria to recover the 500 square meters portion of their registered land does not prescribe and cannot be barred by laches. Nor can Alecha, the adjacent owner, acquire that 500-square-meter area by prescription because it is covered by a Torrens title.

Section 46 of the Land Registration Law, now section 47 of the Property Registration Decree (PD No. 1529 effective June 11, 1978), provides that "no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession" (Corporacion de PP. Agustinos Recoletos v. Crisostomo, 32 Phil. 427, 439; Estella v. Register of Deeds of Rizal, 106 Phil. 911, 914; Santiago v. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., 110 Phil. 16, 22; Manila Electric Co. and Sheriff of Quezon City v. Enriquez and Espinosa, 110 Phil. 499, 504).

Prescription is unavailing not only against the registered owner but also against his hereditary successors because the latter merely step into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law and are merely the continuation of the personality of their predecessor-in-interest (Barcelona v. Barcelona, 100 Phil. 251, 257).

As stated by Justice Johnson in the 1915 case of Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590 the real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality. "Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the ‘mirador de su casa’, to avoid the possibility of losing his land."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thus, a registered owner of land who lost possession thereof in 1925, when it was taken by the municipality of Pasay for road purposes, is not barred from recovering compensation for said land in 1958 or 33 years later. The reason is that registered land are not subject to prescription. It was an error to dismiss the landowner’s complaint on the ground of laches and prescription (Alfonso v. Pasay City, 106 Phil. 1017; Herrera v. Auditor General, 102 Phil. 875).

Adverse, notorious and continuous possession under a claim of ownership for the period fixed by law is ineffective against a Torrens title (Tuason v. Bolaños, 95 Phil. 106; 111; Vda. de Recinto v. Inciong, L-26083, May 31, 1977, 77 SCRA 196; J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, L-23480, September 11, 1979, 93 SCRA 146).

"Una posesion adversa, exclusiva, publica y continuada a titulo de dueño por el tiempo fijado por la ley es ineficaz contra un titulo Torrens. El titulo de propiedad expedido de acuerdo con la Ley del Registro de la Propiedad es imprescriptible." (Valiente v. Court of First Instance, 80 Phil. 415, 417; J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Macalindong, 116 Phil. 1227; J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Santiago, 99 Phil. 615.)

Title to land can no longer be acquired by prescription after a Torrens title has been issued for it (Dimson v. Rural Progress Administration, 90 Phil. 714, 717; Fernandez v. Aboratigue, L-25313, December 28, 1970, 36 SCRA 476).chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

The right to recover possession of registered land is imprescriptible because possession is a mere consequence of ownership (Atun v. Nuñez, 97 Phil. 762; Manlapas and Tolentino v. Llorente, 48 Phil. 298, 308; J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Aguirre, 117 Phil. 110, 113-114).

In this case, the petitioners’ action to recover the 500 square meters cannot be barred by the equitable defense of laches or delay because they because aware of the encroachment only after they hired a surveyor in 1963 to ascertain the true area and boundaries of Lot No. 5280.

Laches presupposes waiver of one’s right. There was no waiver in this case. The petitioners, poor, ignorant rustics, never intended to renounce their right to the 500 square meters.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and set aside. That of the trial court is affirmed. No costs.cralawnad

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Jr., Escolin and Cuevas, JJ., concur.

Makasiar and Abad Santos, JJ., concur in the result.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1985 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 56598 March 15, 1985 - CORNELIO R. CALABIG v. FLORENTINO M. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-42283 March 18, 1985 - BUENAVENTURA ANGELES v. URSULA TORRES CALASANZ

  • G.R. No. L-45456 March 18, 1985 - REGINA A. AFABLE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-46000 March 18, 1985 - GLICERIO AGUSTIN v. LAUREANO BACALAN

  • G.R. No. L-46768 March 18, 1985 - BASILIO GODINEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-49648 March 18, 1985 - LORETA CABRIAS v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. No. 50695 March 18, 1985 - MINDA M. AQUINO v. JOSEFINA R. NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. 57211 March 18, 1985 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. v. GEORGE P. MACLI-ING

  • G.R. Nos. 57425-27 March 18, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 57589 March 18, 1985 - AMADO G. SORIANO v. RUBEN B. ANCHETA

  • G.R. No. 57682 March 18, 1985 - RONALD CABE v. SOTERO L. TUMANG

  • G.R. No. 58823 March 18, 1985 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MISAMIS

  • G.R. No. 60038 March 18, 1985 - SUMMIT TRADING AND DEV’T. CORP. v. HERMINIO A. AVENDAÑO

  • G.R. No. 61416 March 18, 1985 - FELDA ALBIENDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 62051 March 18, 1985 - RURAL BANK OF PARAÑAQUE, INC. v. ISIDRA REMOLADO

  • G.R. No. 65792 March 18, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS CRISANTO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 67284 March 18, 1985 - TEOFISTO UMBAY v. PLACIDO ALECHA

  • G.R. No. 68159 March 18, 1985 - HOMOBONO A. ADAZA v. FERNANDO PACANA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 70237 March 18, 1985 - JESUS C. EBOL v. OMAR U. AMIN

  • G.R. No. 39537 March 19, 1985 - IRENE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-38276 March 20, 1985 - LUZON CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 51770 March 20, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO GALIT

  • G.R. No. 60039-40 March 20, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MABANSAG

  • G.R. No. 60100 March 20, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62126 March 25, 1985 - TERENCIO RAÑON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 42914 March 27, 19885

    RODOLFO CEPEDA v. BACOLOD MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. 68828 March 27, 1985 - RELI GERMAN, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO BARANGAN

  • G.R. No. 52479 March 28, 1985 - JAIME F. MARIÑO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS.

  • G.R. No. L-36249 March 29, 1985 - ANIANO OBAÑA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 59407 March 29, 1985 - CITY SERVICE CORP. WORKERS UNION v. CITY SERVICE CORP.