GR 112519; (November, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 112519 November 14, 1996
CATHOLIC BISHOP OF BALANGA, represented by CRISPULO TORRICO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and AMANDO DE LEON, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Catholic Bishop of Balanga, is the registered owner under OCT No. 14379 of Lot No. 1272 in Balanga, Bataan. In 1936, the then parish priest and administrator, Rev. Fr. Mariano Sarili, executed an Escritura de Donacion over a 265.36-square-meter portion of the lot in favor of Ana de los Reyes, as a reward for her long service. The deed was accepted but unregistered. Ana de los Reyes possessed the property until her death in 1939, after which her nephew, private respondent Amando de Leon, took possession, built a house, and paid realty taxes. In 1985, the petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of possession, alleging de Leon entered the property during the Japanese occupation without consent.
ISSUE
Whether the action for recovery of possession is barred by prescription, considering the private respondent’s long-term possession under a claim of ownership based on an unregistered donation.
RULING
Yes, the action is barred by prescription. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the Regional Trial Court. While a Torrens title is generally indefeasible and imprescriptible, this principle does not apply when the registered owner has tolerated another’s open, adverse, and continuous possession under a claim of ownership for a period sufficient to acquire title by prescription. The Court found that the donation, though unregistered, was validly executed and accepted, transferring ownership to the donee. Consequently, de Leon and his predecessor’s possession was in the concept of an owner—public, adverse, and uninterrupted from 1936. An action for recovery of possession based on a voidable title prescribes in ten years. The petitioner’s cause of action accrued in 1936 upon the execution of the donation, or at the latest, in 1939 when de Leon took possession. The filing of the complaint in 1985, nearly five decades later, was clearly beyond the prescriptive period. The defense of prescription, having been raised in an amended answer before judgment, was properly considered. Thus, the registered owner’s right to recover possession was extinguished by laches and prescription.