G.R. No. 136427 ; December 17, 2002
SONIA F. LONDRES, ARMANDO V. FUENTES, CHI-CHITA FUENTES QUINTIA, ROBERTO V. FUENTES, LEOPOLDO V. FUENTES, OSCAR V. FUENTES and MARILOU FUENTES ESPLANA, Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, ELENA ALOVERA SANTOS and CONSOLACION ALIVIO ALOVERA, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over the ownership of Lots 1320 and 1333 in Barrio Baybay, Roxas City, Capiz, originally owned by Paulina Arcenas and later by her daughter Filomena Vidal. Petitioners are the surviving children of Filomena Vidal and claim ownership of the lots. Private respondents, Consolacion Alivio Alovera and Elena Alovera Santos, base their claim on an Absolute Sale dated April 24, 1959, executed by Filomena Vidal in favor of Consolacion and her husband Julian Alovera. Petitioners filed a complaint to nullify this Absolute Sale, alleging it was tampered—the cadastral lot number for the second parcel was altered from Lot 2034 (located in Barrio Culasi) to Lot 1333. They also sought just compensation from public respondents DPWH and DOTC for portions of the lots taken for public use (Arnaldo Boulevard and Roxas City Airport parking). The trial court upheld the validity of the Absolute Sale, declared private respondents as legal owners, and ordered public respondents to pay them just compensation. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the validity of the Absolute Sale dated April 24, 1959, and consequently, the ownership of Lots 1320 and 1333. A secondary issue involves the entitlement to just compensation for the portions of land taken by the government.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modification. It upheld the validity of the Absolute Sale and declared private respondents as the legal owners of Lots 1320 and 1333. The Court ruled that the alteration in the deed (changing Lot 2034 to Lot 1333) was made to correct a mistake and reflect the true intention of the parties to sell Lot 1333, based on the description within the deed itself and extrinsic evidence. The Court found that private respondents and their predecessors had been in continuous, open, and notorious possession of the lots for nearly 30 years, paid real estate taxes, and acted as owners, while petitioners never possessed the lots. Petitioners’ action was barred by laches due to their unreasonable delay (30 years) in asserting their claim. Regarding just compensation, the Court modified the decision by dismissing the cross-claim against public respondents, as the obligation to pay just compensation arose after the execution of the Absolute Sale, at which point private respondents were already the owners. Thus, private respondents are entitled to just compensation from the government for the taken portions, but petitioners have no claim.