GR 86787; (May, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 86787 May 8, 1992
MILAGROS TUMULAK BISHOP, JUANA PANGILINAN, EMILIO MAXIMO, ANITA PANGILINAN, MAGDALENA ROSETE, MANUEL DACUT, RECTO DIESTA, VIRGINIA NOVICIO, and LINDA BONILLA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES MANUEL AND JESUSA SALANG, respondents.
FACTS
The private respondents, spouses Manuel and Jesusa Salang, are the registered owners under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-29018 of a parcel of land in Calapacuan, Subic, Zambales, with an area of 1,652 square meters. Portions of this land are in the possession of the petitioners. On January 22, 1985, the private respondents filed a suit for recovery of possession against the petitioners. The petitioners, in their defense, claimed the occupied lots were part of the public domain and could not be validly registered, asserted long and continuous possession supported by tax declarations in their names, and based their claims on sales contracts and inheritance. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the private respondents, declaring that as registered owners, they have the right to possess the land and that the petitioners’ possession was unlawful. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
1. Whether the land in question, being registered under the Torrens system, is validly private property or remains part of the public domain.
2. Whether the petitioners have acquired title to the lots through laches.
3. Whether the petitioners can be considered builders in good faith entitled to rights under Articles 448, 546, 547, and 548 of the Civil Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that the private respondents’ title, traceable to an Original Certificate of Title issued in 1910, is now incontrovertible and conclusive. The presumption of regularity applies to its issuance, including the finding that the land was private and registrable. An action to annul a Torrens title on the ground of fraud must show lack of jurisdiction of the registration court or actual fraud, and must be filed within one year from the decree of registration—none of which was established by the petitioners. A certification from the Bureau of Forestry that the land is alienable public land cannot prevail over a court decree of registration.
2. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the right of a registered owner to eject any illegal occupant is imprescriptible. Laches cannot bar this right as long as the possession was unauthorized. The owner of land registered under the Torrens system cannot lose it by prescription.
3. On the third issue, the Court found that the petitioners cannot be considered builders in good faith. A builder in good faith is unaware of any flaw in his title at the time of building. The petitioners knew they had no right to occupy the land, as they consistently claimed it was public domain, and the Torrens registration constituted constructive notice to all. They were, in effect, squatters. The doctrines guaranteeing the integrity of the Torrens system and the indefeasibility of titles were upheld.