G.R. No. L-67742 October 29, 1987
MELITON GALLARDO and TERESA VILLANUEVA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, MARTA VILLANUEVA VDA. DE AGANA, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, Meliton Gallardo and Teresa Villanueva, filed a complaint for quieting of title over a parcel of land in Cavinti, Laguna, originally registered under OCT No. 2262 in the name of Pedro Villanueva. Petitioners, who are the nephew and niece of Pedro, claimed ownership by virtue of an unnotarized private deed of sale dated August 10, 1937, allegedly executed by Pedro in their favor. Based on this document, the OCT was cancelled and TCT No. RT-6293 was issued in their names in 1944. After the original records were destroyed during the war, the title was administratively reconstituted in 1958 upon presentation of the owner’s duplicate certificate.
In 1976, private respondent Marta Villanueva Vda. de Agana, the daughter of Pedro Villanueva, filed an affidavit of adverse claim against the property. Petitioners demanded the withdrawal of this claim and, upon failure, initiated the present suit. The trial court dismissed the complaint and declared the petitioners’ reconstituted title null and void, a decision affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners have a valid and indefeasible title to the subject property, thereby entitling them to the remedy of quieting of title.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The Court held that the petitioners’ title, derived from a private and unnotarized deed of sale, is fundamentally flawed and cannot prevail over the original registered ownership. A Torrens title is not a shield for the acquisition of property through fraudulent or void means. The purported sale was not duly notarized and lacked the formal requisites of a public document, casting serious doubt on its authenticity and the validity of the transfer.
Furthermore, the defense of prescription and laches raised by the petitioners is unavailing. Prescription does not run against registered land under the Torrens system, and the registered owner’s right to recover possession is imprescriptible. As for laches, the Court found it inapplicable. The existence of a confidential relationship among close relatives excuses delay, and the respondent’s filing of an adverse claim immediately upon discovery of the reconstituted title in 1976 demonstrates she did not sleep on her rights. The administrative reconstitution was ex-parte, and the respondent’s lack of prior knowledge negates any claim of unreasonable delay. The findings of fact by the lower courts, which found the petitioners’ claim of ownership unsupported, are binding and show no cogent reason for reversal.