G.R. No. 175025 ; February 15, 2012
ROGELIO J. JAKOSALEM and GODOFREDO B. DULFO, Petitioners, vs. ROBERTO S. BARANGAN, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Roberto Barangan purchased a 300-square meter lot in Antipolo in 1966, with full payment completed by 1976, resulting in the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-10772 in his name. Due to his military assignments, he could not physically occupy the property. In December 1993, upon planning his retirement, he discovered that petitioner Godofredo Dulfo and his family were occupying the lot. Barangan demanded they vacate, but petitioner Rogelio Jakosalem (Dulfo’s son-in-law) claimed ownership through an alleged assignment from a certain Nicanor Samson. Barangan filed a complaint for recovery of possession.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Barangan’s complaint, citing insufficient evidence to identify the property and ruling that his cause of action was barred by prescription and laches. It awarded damages to the petitioners. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, finding Barangan’s title valid and his evidence sufficient.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Barangan is entitled to recover possession of the subject property based on his Torrens title.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision, reinstating the fundamental principle that a Torrens title is conclusive evidence of ownership and entitles the holder to possession. The Court meticulously examined the evidence and found Barangan’s title, TCT No. N-10772, to be genuine and regularly issued. He presented a clear chain of ownership from the original title, TCT No. 165456, through the Land Purchase Agreement, Deed of Absolute Sale, and subsequent cancellations and issuances. He also consistently paid real property taxes. The relocation survey conducted by Geodetic Engineer Lope Jonco conclusively established that the lot occupied by petitioners was identical to the property described in Barangan’s title.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ claim of ownership by assignment, which was unsupported by any documentary evidence like a deed or a title. Their possession, being merely tacked to that of a purported assignor without proof, could not prevail over a registered title. The defenses of prescription and laches were also unavailing. An action for recovery of possession based on a Torrens title does not prescribe, and laches did not apply because Barangan promptly acted upon discovering the encroachment in 1993. His prior inability to occupy the land due to military service was a valid justification for the delay. Consequently, as the registered owner, Barangan has the superior right to possess the property.