GR 137305; (January, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137305; January 17, 2002
QUIRINO MATEO and MATIAS MATEO, petitioners, vs. DOROTEA DIAZ; REYNALDO DIAZ; REMEDIOS DIAZ; ADORACION DIAZ; NORBERTO DIAZ; YOLANDA CRUZ; OSCAR CRUZ; ESTER CRUZ; NENITA CRUZ; PRIMO POLICARPIO; GAVINO POLICARPIO; FLORENTINA POLICARPIO; MAURO POLICARPIO; and MIGUEL POLICARPIO, respondents.
FACTS
The property in dispute is an 11-hectare riceland in Bulacan, registered under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 206 in the name of Claro Mateo, married to Simeona Manuel, since 1910. Claro died in 1932 and Simeona in 1948. They had children from previous marriages: Cornelia and Felisa (Simeona’s daughters with her first husband, Canuto Mateo), and Quirino and Matias (Simeona’s sons with Claro). In 1951, all four children executed a partition agreement over several parcels. However, in 1979, Quirino and Matias executed an extra-judicial partition over the land covered by OCT No. 206, excluding their half-sisters Cornelia and Felisa. This deed was declared void in a 1984 civil case, and the brothers were convicted of falsification.
In 1987, Quirino and Matias filed a petition for declaratory relief against the children and grandchildren of Cornelia and Felisa (the Diaz, Cruz, and Policarpio respondents), seeking to quiet title. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals ruled against the petitioners, applying prescription and laches. The CA held that the respondents’ open, continuous, and adverse possession for over 30 years barred the petitioners’ claim, despite the registered title, and even ordered the cancellation of OCT No. 206.
ISSUE
Whether the equitable doctrine of laches may override the statutory principle of imprescriptibility of title to registered land under the Torrens system.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title. Under the Land Registration Act (now P.D. No. 1529), a certificate of title is imprescriptible; prescription does not run against registered land. This imprescriptibility benefits not only the registered owner but also his hereditary successors, as they merely step into his shoes by operation of law. The Court emphasized that laches, being an equitable doctrine of “justice outside legality,” cannot be invoked to defeat the clear statutory provision on imprescriptibility. It is applicable only in the absence of, and not against, statutory law.
Consequently, the title of Claro Mateo (OCT No. 206) remains valid and cannot be cancelled based on adverse possession or laches. The proper recourse for determining the rights of all parties is through a proceeding for the settlement of Claro Mateo’s estate to ascertain his legal heirs. The CA’s order to cancel the title and issue new ones to the occupants was a violation of the Torrens system. The case was remanded to the trial court for this proper determination.