G.R. No. 143369 November 27, 2002
LEOPOLDO C. LEONARDO, represented by his daughter EMERENCIANA LEONARDO, petitioner, vs. VIRGINIA TORRES MARAVILLA and LEONOR C. NADAL, as Administratrices of the Estate of MARIANO TORRES, as substituted by FE NADAL VENTURINA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Leopoldo C. Leonardo claims ownership of a 1,151.80 square meter lot in Pasay City, covered by TCT No. 2355 (34515) registered in the name of Mariano Torres y Chavarria, respondents’ predecessor-in-interest. Petitioner alleges he purchased the lot on September 29, 1972 from Eusebio Leonardo Roxas, who in turn purchased it from Mariano Torres on August 28, 1972. On October 6, 1972, petitioner requested the Register of Deeds to register the deeds of sale and issue a new title in his name, but the registration could not be effected because the original copy of TCT No. 2355 was missing from the Registry’s files and the owner’s duplicate copy remained in respondents’ possession. On November 13, 1972, petitioner executed an affidavit of adverse claim, which was annotated on the title only on May 20, 1993, after the original copy was retrieved on May 18, 1993. When respondents ignored his demand for the owner’s duplicate copy, petitioner filed a complaint for “Delivery of Possession of Property, Owner’s Duplicate Certificate of Title, Rentals and Damages” on September 6, 1993. Respondents countered that they have been in open, peaceful, and material possession of the lot since 1938, that the deeds of sale are falsified, and that petitioner’s signature on the 1972 deed is a forgery. The trial court dismissed the complaint on grounds of prescription and laches, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner’s action is barred by prescription and laches.

RULING

Yes, petitioner’s action is barred by prescription and laches. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. Petitioner’s action is not an accion reivindicatoria (action to recover ownership) but an action for specific performance to enforce the deeds of sale, which prescribes in ten (10) years under Article 1144 of the Civil Code. Petitioner’s right of action accrued on September 29, 1972, when delivery of the property was not effected despite payment. The filing of the complaint in 1993, 21 years later, is beyond the prescriptive period. The registration of the adverse claim did not toll the running of the prescriptive period. Furthermore, laches had set in due to petitioner’s unreasonable delay of 21 years in asserting his rights, during which respondents remained in possession and were prejudiced by the delay. The Court also noted that ownership was not transferred to petitioner because there was no delivery of the property, a requisite for the transfer of ownership, and the lot remained registered in the name of Mariano Torres.