Villegas

v. CA
GR NO. L-23818
JAN 21, 1976
MARTIN, J..
Jasmine Buen
I S S U E
Who among the parties is entitled to the
property, based on the validity of their
respective titles?
Has laches set in against private respondent
Fortune Tobacco Corporation?
.....
R U L E S
Presidential Decree No. 1529
SEC 110. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens title. –
Original copies of certificates of title lost or destroyed in the offices of
Register of Deeds as well as liens and encumbrances affecting the lands
covered by such titles shall be reconstituted judicially in accordance with the

.....
procedure described in Republic Act No. 26 insofar as not inconsistent with
this Decree….

Republic Act No. 26,

SEC. 3. — Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from owner’s
duplicate of the certificate of title
SEC. 10 — Requires notice of the petition to be published before hearing and
granting the same
SEC. 9. — Notice to be published twice in successive issues of the Official
Gazette, and posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the
municipal building at least thirty days prior to hearing. After hearing, shall
determine the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may
require. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the publication
and posting of the notice…
A N A LY S I S

•Lot B-3-A, with an area of 4hectares

•Dapdap (now San Fermin), Cauayan, Isabela
•Declared for real estate taxation under Tax Declaration
 A N A LY S I S

Andre
s and
Caiga
s
Domin
go

Fortu Villeg
n e as
Andre
s and
Caiga
s Septembe
r 6, 1963
• Sold for
P60,000 to
• Joint af Fo rtune Toba
fidavit dec cco
• Sale reg laring no t
istered in O enants on
Deeds of I ffice of the said lot
• Old TCT sa b e l a Register of
cancelled;
new TCT i
ssued

Fortune
Andre
s and
Caiga
s

Domin
go

August 6, 1976 f R e c o nv e y a nc e o f t he
e x e c u te d a D e e d o
• Andres and Caigas o m e na D o m in g o , m o t h e r o f J os e li to
same lot in fav o r o f F il
Villegas w h ic h is s u e d n e w T C T
o cu m e n t in t h e O R D ,
•  R e g is t e r e d t h is d t a x at io n
t h e lo tf o r re a l e s t a t e
• Dom in g o d e c la r ed
December 4, 1976 d
of Is ab e la w a s bu r n e
• ORD
together with all titles

December 17, 1976 g o’s n am e

in D o m in
• Original of TCT n s titu t e d
t ive ly r e co
was administra
Andre
s and
Caiga
s

Villeg
Domin as
June 2, 1979 go
• Deed of Absolute Sale of a portion of 20
,000 sq. m. executed by
Domingo in favor of Villegas for a consider
ation of P1,000
June 3, 1981
• DAS Registered
• TCT was issued by the Register of Deeds
to Villegas
• Technical description of remaining lot w
as registered and TCT
issued to Domingo

January 22, 1991

• TCT was registered and TCT was issued
to Joselito Villegas
Andre
s and Septembe
Caiga r 6, 1963
s • Sold for
P60,000 to
• Joint af F
fidavit dec ortune Tobacco
• Sale reg laring no t
istered in O enants on
Deeds of I ffice of the said lot
• Old TCT sabela Register o
f
cancelled;
new TCT i
ssued
April 10, 1
991
• Trial co
urt upon p
ordered th etition file
e reconstit d by Fortu
ution of its ne
Fortune TCT
Andre
s and
Caiga
s

Villeg
Domin as
go

Who among the parties is entitled

to the property, based on the
validity of their respective titles?
Fortune Has laches set in against private
respondent Fortune Tobacco
Corporation?
 VILLEGAS FORTUNE

Asserts that it bought the property in

Fortune was a buyer in bad faith
good faith

Had Fortune investigated for occupants,

Petitioners’ continuous possession of
it would have found petitioners in
the property cannot defeat title
possession thereof

Prior title rule: TCT in its name was

Andres and Caigas were not the owners
issued before issuance of another title
at the time it was sold to Fortune
to Domingo

Fortune’s title is "fake and spurious,"

Petitioners admitted the validity of
having proceeded from its "so-called
Fortune’s title
reconstitution"

Invoke the doctrine of laches against

Fortune’s bid to recover the property
COURT DECISION
RTC Declared Fortune Tobacco entitled to the property.

CA Affirmed RTC’s findings

• Fortune’s petition was set for hearing on January 31, 1991. The
notice of hearing was caused to be published for two
successive issues in the Official Gazette.
• On the scheduled date of hearing, Johnson Fernandez,
Assistant Manager of Fortune and his counsel
appeared. Nobody appeared to oppose the petition.
• To prove the jurisdictional facts, Fortune presented:
• Exh. A: Amended Notice of Hearing
• Exh. B: Affidavit of Publication of the notice of hearing in the
Official Gazette;
• Exh. C: Owner’s duplicate copy of TCT issued to Fortune
• From the evidence presented, it has been established that
Fortune is the registered owner of that certain parcel of land
R U L E S
Presidential Decree No. 1529
SEC 110. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens title. –
Original copies of certificates of title lost or destroyed in the offices of
Register of Deeds as well as liens and encumbrances affecting the lands
covered by such titles shall be reconstituted judicially in accordance with the

.....
procedure described in Republic Act No. 26 insofar as not inconsistent with
this Decree….

Republic Act No. 26,

SEC. 3. — Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from owner’s
duplicate of the certificate of title
SEC. 10 — Requires notice of the petition to be published before hearing and
granting the same
SEC. 9. — Notice to be published twice in successive issues of the Official
Gazette, and posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the
municipal building at least thirty days prior to hearing. After hearing, shall
determine the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may
require. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the publication
and posting of the notice…
C O N C L U S I O N
Requirements for reconstitution not fully complied with
• The proceedings therein being in rem, the court acquires jurisdiction
to hear and decide the petition for the reconstitution of the owner’s
title upon compliance with the required posting of notices and
publication in the Official Gazette.
• These requirements and procedure are mandatory and must strictly
be complied with, otherwise, the proceedings are utterly void, which
is why the petitioner is required to submit proof of the publication
and posting of the notice.
• Non-compliance with the jurisdictional requirement of posting of the
notice renders the order of reconstitution null and void.
Consequently, the reconstituted title of Fortune is likewise void.
Fortune cannot now invoke the prior title rule, as it in effect has no
valid title to speak of
C O N C L U S I O N

Laches has set in against Fortune, precluding its right to recover the
property in question.
• The failure or neglect, for an unreasonable length of time to do that
which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done
earlier constitutes laches.
• It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has
either abandoned it or declined to assert it.
• While it is by express provision of law that no title to registered land
in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession, it is likewise an enshrined rule
that even a registered owner may be barred from recovering
possession of property by virtue of laches.
C O N C L U S I O N
ELEMENT FORTUNE

Conduct on the part of the

Object of Fortune’s complaint before
defendant, or one under whom he
the trial court was to recover
claims, giving rise to the situation
possession of the property in
that led to the complaint and for
question.
which the complaint seeks a remedy

Fortune’s suit for recovery of

Delay in asserting the complainant’s
possession and damages was
rights, having had knowledge or
instituted only on May 29,
notice of the defendant’s conduct
1991, fifteen years after the
and having been afforded an
registration of Filomena Domingo’s
opportunity to institute a suit
title to the property in 1976.
C O N C L U S I O N
ELEMENT
Lack of knowledge or notice on the
part of the defendant that the
complainant would assert the right
on which he bases his suit
Injury or prejudice to the defendant
in the event relief is accorded to the
complainant, or the suit is not held
barred
FORTUNE
Nothing in the record shows that
Villegas had any inkling of Fortune’s
intent to possess the property. While
Fortune claims that it protested and
demanded that petitioners vacate
the land and surrender its
possession, there is nothing on
record to support such contention.
Petitioners will be prejudiced if
Fortune’s complaint is accorded
relief, or not held barred, as then
petitioners would be deprived of the
property on which their households
stand.