G.R. No. 151240 March 31, 2009
ANGELINE CATORES, Petitioner, vs. MARY D. AFIDCHAO, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Mary D. Afidchao is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Baguio City covered by TCT No. T-27839, which she purchased in 1977. She declared the property for tax purposes and paid realty taxes. In June 1984, petitioner Angeline Catores occupied a portion of the property, building a house and making improvements. Respondent filed a forcible entry case, which the MTC dismissed, stating the real issue was legal possession and the remedy was accion publiciana. A verification relocation survey ordered by the MTC confirmed petitioner’s encroachment. Consequently, respondent filed a complaint for Accion Publiciana. Petitioner, in her Answer, claimed possession since 1977, asserted the land was not within anyone’s property, including respondent’s, and alleged possession with color of title. The RTC ruled in favor of respondent, declaring the occupied portion as part of her titled land and ordering petitioner to vacate and remove improvements. The CA affirmed the RTC decision, holding that despite an alleged discrepancy in the technical description of the title, the property could be concretely located using the Bureau of Lands control map and existing monuments, and that petitioner’s encroachment was established. The CA also noted admissions by petitioner’s expert witness that weakened her case and referred to a report of an ocular inspection.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision which held that respondent, as the registered owner, has a better right to possess the disputed portion of land, despite petitioner’s challenges regarding the technical description of the title and the methods used to identify the property.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that a Torrens title is indefeasible and imprescriptible, and the person with a registered title is entitled to possession of the property. It ruled that the technical description in a certificate of title is not the sole means to identify the land; relocation surveys using existing monuments and verified control points from the Bureau of Lands are acceptable methods to establish the property’s actual location. The Court found that the surveyors for respondent used such reliable methods, while petitioner’s expert witness admitted to not conducting an ocular inspection and not accounting for actual monument locations. The Court emphasized that in accion publiciana, the plaintiff must prove a better right of possession, which respondent successfully did through her Torrens title, tax declarations, tax payments, and the corroborating survey evidence. The alleged defects in the technical description did not render the title or the property unidentifiable. The weakness of petitioner’s claim did not relieve respondent of the burden of proof, but the Court found respondent had sufficiently established the strength of her own title and right to possession.