G.R. No. 92159 July 1, 1993
LEDITA BURCE JACOB and BUENAVENTURA JACOB, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ROSARIO ALCERA FALCON, TRINIDAD ALCERA CRUZ and PURIFICACION ALCERA CHAY, rep. by TRINIDAD ALCERA CRUZ, respondents.

FACTS

The private respondents, grandchildren of Agaton Boragay and Manuela Bobiles, sued the petitioners for recovery of possession and ownership of a 794-square meter parcel of land in Tagas, Tabaco, Albay. The land was originally covered by Original Certificate of Title No. RO-3334 issued in 1932 in the name of Manuela Bobiles. The property passed to their only child, Gregoria Boragay, and upon her death, to her children, the private respondents. In 1977, OCT No. RO-3334 was canceled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-50318 was issued in the name of the private respondents. The petitioners and other defendants had constructed houses on the land between 1974 and 1981. After a demand to vacate was refused, the complaint was filed in 1984.
The petitioners claimed ownership based on an “Escritura de Venta Con Pacto de Retro” (Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase) allegedly executed in 1933 by the original owners in favor of Leon Cabida, with subsequent sales to Emilio Bonto (1948), then to Ricardo Burce and Consolacion Burce Elaco (1956), and a verbal cession to petitioner Ledita Burce Jacob in 1980 (confirmed in 1985). They asserted actual possession for over 51 years and payment of taxes since 1948. They alleged that in 1976, Consolacion Burce Elaco, upon discovering the existing title in Manuela Bobiles’s name, sought a waiver from the private respondents, who demanded an additional P6,000.00, which was refused.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint and declared the petitioners lawful owners/possessors of portions of the lot. The Court of Appeals reversed, upholding the private respondents’ title.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court and upholding the title of the private respondents, thereby disregarding the petitioners’ claim based on the Escritura de Venta Con Pacto de Retro and their arguments of bad faith and laches.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The Court held that the Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the private respondents is evidence of an indefeasible title. The petitioners, despite being in possession and having knowledge of the private respondents’ claim in 1976, did not file any opposition to the registration proceedings that led to the issuance of TCT No. T-50318 in 1977. Furthermore, they did not seek the annulment of the title on the ground of fraud within the one-year period prescribed by law. Their inaction for years (until the complaint was filed in 1984) barred them from contesting the validity of the title. The Court also noted that the property remained registered in the name of Manuela Bobiles throughout the alleged chain of sales by the petitioners’ predecessors-in-interest.
While the Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the Escritura de Venta Con Pacto de Retro as it was an ancient document admissible as evidence under the Rules of Court, this did not aid the petitioners’ cause. The petitioners and their predecessors slept on their rights and failed to take timely legal steps to assert their claim against the registered title. The defense of laches was not available to them, as it is a doctrine that bars a claim due to neglect or delay in asserting it, which in this case applied to the private respondents’ predecessors, not to the registered owners themselves. The title of the private respondents, having become incontrovertible, prevails.