G.R. No. 111027 February 3, 1999.
BERNARDINO RAMOS and ROSALIA OLI, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, RODOLFO BAUTISTA and FELISA LOPEZ, respondents.

FACTS

On March 14, 1939, Pedro Tolentino sold Lot Nos. 572 and 579 of the Gattaran cadastre to petitioners Bernardino Ramos and Rosalia Oli. Petitioners claimed they were in open, public, adverse, peaceful, and continuous possession of the lots for over fifty years. However, they discovered that decrees of registration for the lots were issued on January 7, 1940, and Original Certificates of Title (OCT Nos. 17811 and 17812) were issued on March 11, 1941, in the name of Lucia Bautista, who allegedly never claimed ownership or possession. Private respondent Rodolfo Bautista, as sole heir of Lucia Bautista, executed an affidavit of self-adjudication on September 20, 1975, and obtained Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT Nos. T-31698 and T-31699). Petitioners filed an action for reconveyance with damages on January 8, 1976, claiming they acquired the lots by acquisitive prescription and that the titles of Lucia and Rodolfo Bautista were null and void. Private respondents argued the action was a collateral attack on the decrees of registration and that acquisitive prescription cannot apply to Torrens-registered land. The trial court dismissed the complaint, declaring private respondents absolute owners, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

ISSUE

May the heir of the original registrant of parcels of land under the Torrens System be deprived of ownership by alleged claimants thereof through acquisitive prescription?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that a Torrens title, once registered, becomes indefeasible and imprescriptible one year after the decree of registration. Acquisitive prescription does not run against registered land under the Torrens System. Petitioners’ claim, based on alleged deeds of sale from 1939, failed due to lack of authentic proof; the original documents were lost and not properly proven. Furthermore, petitioners’ inaction during the cadastral proceedings in 1940, where they did not file an answer despite claiming ownership, and their failure to file a petition for review within one year from the decree, barred their action. The Court also noted that laches had set in, as the action for reconveyance was filed over thirty-six years after the titles were issued. Private respondents, as heirs, stepped into the shoes of the original registrant and were protected as innocent third parties.