G.R. No. L-68687. January 31, 1987.
SPOUSES FRANCISCO CIMAFRANCA and VIBESA GURDIEL, CARIDAD EGUIA, and FIDELA EGUIA, petitioners, vs. THE HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, THE HEIRS OF PERFECTO JALOSJOS, et al., and THE HEIRS OF MARIA CLEOFE JALOSJOS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Lot No. 86 was originally registered in 1919 under OCT No. RO-1708 in the names of Simplicia Bagsican (1/2 share) and her three children, including Pedro Gurdiel (collectively, 1/2 share). In 1917, Pedro Gurdiel sold a portion of the lot to Perfecto Jalosjos, who took possession and built a house. In 1958, the heirs of Simplicia Bagsican executed a deed of extrajudicial partition, adjudicating Lot 86 to Pedro Gurdiel and confirming the previous sale of a 1/4 interest to Perfecto Jalosjos. Consequently, TCT No. T-4569 was issued in the names of Pedro Gurdiel (3/4 share) and Perfecto Jalosjos (1/4 share). Upon Pedro Gurdiel’s death, his heirs eventually conveyed their interests, with petitioners acquiring the 3/4 share registered under Gurdiel’s name.
A 1971 survey, however, revealed that the area occupied by the heirs of Jalosjos (respondents) measured 1,109 square meters, while the area corresponding to petitioners was only 487 square meters. Petitioners, as registered owners of a 3/4 share, filed an action for partition and damages, seeking to recover the alleged excess area occupied by respondents. The trial court and the Intermediate Appellate Court ruled in favor of respondents, declaring them absolute owners of the 1,109-square-meter portion (Lot 86-B) and petitioners owners of only the 487-square-meter portion (Lot 86-A), thereby effectively revising the shares indicated in TCT No. T-4569. The lower courts anchored their decision on respondents’ long-term possession since 1917.

ISSUE

Whether the long-term possession by respondents and their predecessors-in-interest can override the registered shares of the parties as stated in Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4569.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision. The core legal principle is that a Torrens title is indefeasible and imprescriptible. The registered ownership of petitioners over a 3/4 share and respondents over a 1/4 share, as clearly stated in TCT No. T-4569, is conclusive and cannot be defeated by the mere allegation of adverse possession, no matter how long. Prescription and laches do not run against registered land under the Torrens system. The Court emphasized that the efficacy and integrity of the Torrens system must be preserved.
The ruling in Arcuino v. Agaris, which the appellate court relied upon, is inapplicable because in that case, the claimants were not registered owners. Here, both parties derive their claims from the same certificate of title. The title itself is the best evidence of ownership, and the shares specified therein are binding. The proper remedy is not to nullify the title based on possession but to effect an actual partition according to the registered shares. The Court ordered the actual partition of Lot No. 86 in accordance with TCT No. T-4569, allocating a 3/4 undivided share to petitioners and a 1/4 undivided share to respondents.