Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 150654 December 13, 2007
HEIRS O !N!C"ETO #. NIETO, $%me&', SI(T! P. NIETO, EU"!"IO P. NIETO,
G!UDENCIO P. NIETO, %$) COR!*ON P. NIETO+IGN!CIO, re,re-e$.e) b'
EU"!"IO P. NIETO, Petitioners,
vs.
MUNICIP!"IT/ O ME/C!U!/!N, #U"!C!N, re,re-e$.e) b' M!/OR EDU!RDO
!"!RI""!, Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
N!CHUR!, J.:
This is a petition for revie" on certiorari of the Decision
#
of the !ourt of $ppeals, dated
October %&, '&&#, "hich dis(issed the petition for revie" of the Decision of the
Re)ional Trial !ourt *RT!+ of Malolos, ,ulacan. The latter dis(issed a co(plaint to
recover possession of a re)istered land on the )round of prescription and laches.
The antecedents are as follo"s-
$nacleto Nieto "as the re)istered o"ner of a parcel of land, consistin) of %,..' s/uare
(eters, situated at Poblacion, Me0caua0an, ,ulacan and covered b0 T!T No. T1
'2.&33 *M+. The propert0 is bein) used b0 respondent, Municipalit0 of Me0caua0an,
,ulacan, "hich constructed an e4tension of the public (ar5et therein.
6pon $nacleto7s death on 8ul0 '9, #::%, his "ife, Si4ta P. Nieto, and their three
children, na(el0, ulalio P. Nieto, ;audencio Nieto and !ora<on Nieto1I)nacio, herein
petitioners, collated all the docu(ents pertainin) to his estate. =hen petitioners failed
to locate the o"ner7s duplicate cop0 of T!T No. T1'2.&33 *M+, the0 filed a petition for
the issuance of a second o"ner7s cop0 "ith the RT!, Malolos, ,ulacan. In that case,
petitioners discovered that the (issin) cop0 of the title "as in the possession of the
respondent. !onse/uentl0, petitioners "ithdre" the petition and de(anded fro(
respondent the return of propert0 and the certificate of title.
On >ebruar0 '%, #::2, petitioners for(all0 de(anded fro( respondent the return of
the possession and full control of the propert0, and pa0(ent of a (onthl0 rent "ith
interest fro( 8anuar0 #:92. Respondent did not co(pl0 "ith petitioners7 de(and.
'
On Dece(ber '., #::2, petitioners filed a co(plaint
%
for recover0 of possession and
da(a)es a)ainst respondent alle)in) that the latter "as in possession of the o"ner7s
cop0 of T!T No. T1'2.&33 *M+. The0 averred that, in #:99, respondent occupied the
sub?ect propert0 b0 (a5in) it appear that it "ould e4propriate the sa(e. Respondent
then used the land as a public (ar5et site and leased the stalls therein to several
persons "ithout pa0in) $nacleto Nieto the value of the land or rent therefor. Petitioners
pra0ed that respondent be ordered to surrender to the( the o"ner7s cop0 of T!T No.
T1'2.&33 *M+, vacate the propert0, and pa0 the( the rents thereon fro( #:99 until the
date of the filin) of the co(plaint for the total of P#,@#9,&&&.&&, and P#&,&&&.&& a
(onth thereafter, as "ell as P%&&,&&&.&& as (oral da(a)es, and P#&&,&&&.&& as
attorne07s fees.
In its $ns"er,
2
respondent alle)ed that the propert0 "as donated to it and that the
action "as alread0 ti(e1barred because %' 0ears had elapsed since it possessed the
propert0.
Respondent and counsel failed to appear durin) the scheduled pre1trial conference.
3

6pon petitioners7 (otion, respondent "as declared as in default and petitioners "ere
allo"ed to present evidence e4 parte. Respondent filed a (otion for reconsideration
"hich the RT! )ranted. Respondent "as then allo"ed to cross1e4a(ine petitioners7
lone "itness and present its o"n evidence. Ho"ever, despite notice, respondent failed
a)ain to appear durin) the scheduled hearin). Hence, the RT! considered respondent
to have "aived its ri)ht to cross1e4a(ine petitioners7 "itness and present its o"n
evidence. The case "as then sub(itted for decision.
On $u)ust #, #::3, the RT! rendered a Decision dis(issin) the co(plaint as "ell as
respondent7s counterclai(s for da(a)es. >or lac5 of proof, the RT! disre)arded
respondent7s clai( that $nacleto Nieto donated the propert0 to it in li)ht of the fact that
the title re(ained in the na(e of $nacleto. Nonetheless, the RT! did not rule in favor
of petitioners because of its findin) that the case "as alread0 barred b0 prescription. It
held that the i(prescriptibilit0 of actions to recover land covered b0 the Torrens S0ste(
could onl0 be invo5ed b0 the re)istered o"ner, $nacleto Nieto, and that the action "as
also barred b0 laches.
Petitioners appealed the case to the !ourt of $ppeals *!$+. On October %&, '&&#, the
!$ rendered a Decision dis(issin) the case for lac5 of ?urisdiction. $ccordin) to the
!$, the petition involved a pure /uestion of la"A hence, petitioners should have filed a
petition directl0 "ith this !ourt.
9
$ccordin)l0, petitioners elevated the case to this !ourt throu)h a petition for revie" on
certiorari, raisin) the follo"in) issues-
$. $re lands covered b0 the Torrens S0ste( sub?ect to prescriptionB
,. Ma0 the defense of ClDaches be invo5ed in this specific caseB
!. Ma0 the defense of i(prescriptibilit0 onl0 be invo5ed b0 the re)istered
o"ner to the e4clusion of his le)iti(ate heirsB
@
1
The petition is (eritorious.
Respondent ar)ues that the action of petitioner to recover possession of the propert0
is alread0 barred b0 prescription.
=e do not a)ree.
$n action to recover possession of a re)istered land never prescribes in vie" of the
provision of Section 22 of $ct No. 2:9 to the effect that no title to re)istered land in
dero)ation of that of a re)istered o"ner shall be ac/uired b0 prescription or adverse
possession.
.
It follo"s that an action b0 the re)istered o"ner to recover a real propert0
re)istered under the Torrens S0ste( does not prescribe.
Despite 5no"led)e of this avo"ed doctrine, the trial court ruled that petitioners7 cause
of action had alread0 prescribed on the )round that the i(prescriptibilit0 to recover
lands re)istered under the Torrens S0ste( can onl0 be invo5ed b0 the person under
"hose na(e the land is re)istered.
$)ain, "e do not a)ree. It is "ell settled that the rule on i(prescriptibilit0 of re)istered
lands not onl0 applies to the re)istered o"ner but e4tends to the heirs of the re)istered
o"ner as "ell.
:
Recentl0 in Mateo v. Dia<,
#&
the !ourt held that prescription is
unavailin) not onl0 a)ainst the re)istered o"ner, but also a)ainst his hereditar0
successors because the latter step into the shoes of the decedent b0 operation of la"
and are the continuation of the personalit0 of their predecessor1in1interest. Hence,
petitioners, as heirs of $nacleto Nieto, the re)istered o"ner, cannot be barred b0
prescription fro( clai(in) the propert0.
$side fro( findin) that petitioners7 cause of action "as barred b0 prescription, the trial
court reinforced its dis(issal of the case b0 holdin) that the action "as li5e"ise barred
b0 laches.
Eaches has been defined as the failure or ne)lect, for an unreasonable and
une4plained len)th of ti(e, to do that "hich, b0 e4ercisin) due dili)ence could or
should have been done earlier. It is ne)li)ence or o(ission to assert a ri)ht "ithin a
reasonable ti(e, "arrantin) the presu(ption that the part0 entitled to assert his ri)ht
has either abandoned or declined to assert it.
##
In a nu(ber of cases, the !ourt has held that an action to recover re)istered land
covered b0 the Torrens S0ste( (a0 not be barred b0 laches.
#'
Eaches cannot be set
up to resist the enforce(ent of an i(prescriptible le)al ri)ht.
#%
Eaches, "hich is a
principle based on e/uit0, (a0 not prevail a)ainst a specific provision of la", because
e/uit0, "hich has been defined as F?ustice outside le)alit0,F is applied in the absence of
and not a)ainst statutor0 la" or rules of procedure.
#2
In recent cases,
#3
ho"ever, the !ourt held that "hile it is true that a Torrens title is
indefeasible and i(prescriptible, the re)istered lando"ner (a0 lose his ri)ht to recover
possession of his re)istered propert0 b0 reason of laches.
Get, even if "e appl0 the doctrine of laches to re)istered lands, it "ould still not bar
petitioners7 clai(. It should be stressed that laches is not concerned onl0 "ith the (ere
lapse of ti(e.
#9
The follo"in) ele(ents (ust be present in order to constitute laches-
*#+ conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under "ho( he clai(s,
)ivin) rise to the situation of "hich co(plaint is (ade for "hich the co(plaint
see5s a re(ed0A
*'+ dela0 in assertin) the co(plainant7s ri)hts, the co(plainant havin) had
5no"led)e or notice, of the defendant7s conduct and havin) been afforded an
opportunit0 to institute a suitA
*%+ lac5 of 5no"led)e or notice on the part of the defendant that the
co(plainant "ould assert the ri)ht on "hich he bases his suitA and
*2+ in?ur0 or pre?udice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the
co(plainant, or the suit is not held to be barred.
#@
=e note that the certificate of title in the na(e of $nacleto Nieto "as found in
respondent7s possession but there "as no evidence that o"nership of the propert0
"as transferred to the (unicipalit0 either throu)h a donation or b0 e4propriation, or
that an0 co(pensation "as paid b0 respondent for the use of the propert0. $nacleto
alle)edl0 surrendered the certificate of title to respondent upon the belief that the
propert0 "ould be e4propriated. $bsent an0 sho"in) that this certificate of title "as
fraudulentl0 obtained b0 respondent, it can be presu(ed that $nacleto voluntaril0
delivered the sa(e to respondent. $nacleto7s deliver0 of the certificate of title to
respondent could, therefore, be ta5en to (ean ac/uiescence to respondent7s plan to
e4propriate the propert0, or a tacit consent to the use of the propert0 pendin) its
e4propriation.
This !ourt has consistentl0 held that those "ho occup0 the land of another at the
latter7s tolerance or per(ission, "ithout an0 contract bet"een the(, are necessaril0
bound b0 an i(plied pro(ise that the occupants "ill vacate the propert0 upon
de(and.
#.
The status of the possessor is analo)ous to that of a lessee or tenant
"hose ter( of lease has e4pired but "hose occupanc0 continues b0 tolerance of the
o"ner. In such case, the unla"ful deprivation or "ithholdin) of possession is to be
counted fro( the date of the de(and to vacate.
#:
6pon the refusal to vacate the
propert0, the o"ner7s cause of action accrues.
In this case, the first ele(ent of laches occurred the (o(ent respondent refused to
vacate the propert0, upon petitioners de(and, on >ebruar0 '%, #::2. The filin) of the
co(plaint on Dece(ber '., #::2, after the lapse of a period of onl0 ten (onths,
cannot be considered as unreasonable dela0 a(ountin) to laches.
2
Moreover, case la" teaches that if the clai(ant7s possession of the land is (erel0
tolerated b0 its la"ful o"ner, the latter7s ri)ht to recover possession is never barred b0
laches. ven if it be supposed that petitioners "ere a"are of respondent7s occupation
of the propert0, and re)ardless of the len)th of that possession, the la"ful o"ners have
a ri)ht to de(and the return of their propert0 at an0 ti(e as lon) as the possession
"as unauthori<ed or (erel0 tolerated, if at all.
'&
>urther(ore, the doctrine of laches cannot be invo5ed to defeat ?ustice or to perpetrate
fraud and in?ustice. It is the better rule that courts, under the principle of e/uit0, "ill not
be )uided or bound strictl0 b0 the statute of li(itations or the doctrine of laches "hen
b0 doin) so, (anifest "ron) or in?ustice "ould result.
'#
>inall0, "e find that the rentals bein) pra0ed for b0 petitioners are reasonable
considerin) the si<e and location of the sub?ect propert0. $ccordin)l0, the a"ard of
rentals is "arranted.
=HR>OR, pre(ises considered, the petition is ;R$NTD. The Decision of the
Re)ional Trial !ourt of Malolos, ,ulacan, dated $u)ust #, #::3, is RVRSD and
ST $SID. Respondent is ORDRD *a+ to vacate and surrender peaceful
possession of the propert0 to petitioners, or pa0 the reasonable value of the propert0A
*b+ to pa0 P#,@#9,&&&.&& as reasonable co(pensation for the use of the propert0 fro(
#:99 until the filin) of the co(plaint and P#&,&&&.&& (onthl0 rental thereafter until it
vacates the propert0, "ith #'H interest fro( the filin) of the co(plaint until full0 paidA
and *c+ to return to petitioners the duplicate cop0 of T!T No. T1'2.&33 *M+.
SO ORDRD.
3