G.R. No. 84051 . May 19, 1989.
FRANCISCO, SEVERO, VALENTINA, RUSTICO, DOMINADOR & NICOMEDES, all surnamed BERGADO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Twelfth Division) and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

The disputed property, part of a lot in Pangasinan originally owned by Marciana Trinidad, is claimed by both petitioners and the Republic of the Philippines under separate deeds of sale from the same vendor. Petitioners derive their claim from an Escritura de Compraventa dated May 3, 1928, executed by Marciana Trinidad in favor of their parents, Pedro Bergado and Justina Galinato. However, Marciana Trinidad subsequently executed a Deed of Sale dated February 19, 1947, conveying the same property to the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) of the Urdaneta Community High School. The Republic later acquired the land through a deed of donation from the PTA on July 26, 1977.
The petitioners, claiming by right of inheritance, filed a complaint in 1981 to nullify the Republic’s title. The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Republic. The appellate court held that petitioners’ action was barred by prescription and laches, noting that the PTA and later the Republic had been in open, continuous, and notorious possession of the land since 1947, constructing significant improvements like school buildings and an adobe wall without any protest from petitioners.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners’ action for recovery of title is barred by prescription and laches.

RULING

Yes, the action is barred. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. On the procedural issue, the Court clarified that while pre-trial generally limits issues to those disclosed, prescription can be considered by the court at any stage if the facts demonstrating its lapse are apparent on record, as established in Gicano v. Gegato. The records conclusively show the accrual of the cause of action in 1947 when the PTA took possession, or at the latest by 1965-1966 when an adobe wall was erected, symbolizing exclusive ownership. Petitioners filed their complaint only in 1981, well beyond the ten-year prescriptive period for recovery of real property under Article 1141 of the Civil Code.
Furthermore, petitioners are guilty of laches. They failed to assert their rights for over three decades despite clear acts of ownership by the PTA and the Republic, including the construction of permanent school infrastructures. Their silence and inaction, especially given that one of their brothers was the PTA treasurer who released funds for the constructions, warrant the presumption that they had abandoned their claim. The Court also noted that the petitioners’ registration of the 1928 Escritura in 1964 was done in bad faith, as they were already aware of the Republic’s possession, thus negating any priority under Article 1544 of the Civil Code regarding double sales. Ownership rightfully vested in the Republic as the first possessor in good faith. The petition was denied.