G.R. No. 161943 ; June 28, 2005
RUBEN ROMERO, represented by DIOSDADO ROMERO, petitioner, vs. EDISON N. NATIVIDAD and HERMINIA NATIVIDAD-MEJORADA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ruben Romero, grandson of the registered owner Francisca Galarosa, filed a complaint for recovery of possession and quieting of title against respondents Edison Natividad and Herminia Natividad-Mejorada, who are Francisca’s great grandnephew and great grandniece. The subject is a portion of land covered by T.C.T. No. 20890 in Francisca’s name. Petitioner claims ownership by inheritance from his mother, Estelita Bautista-Atendido, who inherited it from Francisca. He alleges that on July 27, 1994, respondents entered the contested portion and constructed a building.
Respondents defended that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession since the 1920s when Francisca donated the property to their grandparents, Demetrio Natividad and Ulpiana Raymundo, upon Ulpiana’s marriage. They inherited it from their father, Herminigildo Natividad, who operated a bakery on the land until it burned. They constructed a commercial building on March 3, 1994. They raised the defenses of prescription and laches.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed petitioner’s complaint, ruling that respondents’ long possession ripened into acquisitive prescription. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision but deleted the award of attorney’s fees. The appellate court held that the general rule on prescription not operating against titled property does not apply because petitioner is not the registered owner. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint based on prescription and laches, despite the subject property being a titled land.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The Court held that the general rule that prescription does not run against registered land under the Torrens system does not apply because petitioner is not the registered owner. The registered owner was Francisca Galarosa. The Court applied the doctrine in Tambot v. Court of Appeals, which states that a registered owner’s title may not be lost through prescription, but this protection does not extend to one who is not the registered owner.
The Court found that respondents and their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession of the property since the 1920s. Petitioner’s mother filed a case against Demetrio Natividad only in 1965, or 44 years after possession began, and that case was dismissed by agreement. Petitioner himself filed an ejectment case only in 1994, or about 74 years after respondents’ possession started, and another case for recovery of possession was also dismissed. From 1965 to 1996, when petitioner filed the present complaint, 26 years lapsed without any action.
The Court ruled that petitioner’s and his predecessor-in-interest’s neglect to assert ownership for such a long period constitutes laches, which bars the present action. The legal maxim “Vigilantibus sed non dormientibus jura subveniunt” (The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights) applies. Thus, the defense of prescription and laches was correctly upheld.