G.R. No. 98182 . March 1, 1993.
PASTOR FERRER, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE C. VINLUAN, ROSARIO FERRER, RAYMUNDO VINLUAN, EMILIA ZARATE, ANGELES LOPEZ, GAVINO VINLUAN, MARIO ZARATE, CRISPULO MACASIEB and DIGNA CAOILE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pastor Ferrer has been in possession for over twenty years of a 330-square-meter residential lot (the disputed land) in Binmaley, Pangasinan, covered by his Tax Declaration No. 409. On January 19, 1987, private respondents, heirs of Crispulo Vinluan, filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession, alleging the disputed land formed part of their ten-hectare fishpond covered by Plan Psu-26666. They claimed Ferrer, in bad faith, declared a portion of their property under his tax declaration in 1982, filled part of the fishpond with earth in March 1983, built his house thereon, and refused to vacate despite demands. Ferrer asserted he had been in actual, adverse, public, and continuous possession since 1956, owned the land by accretion, and that the action was barred by prescription. A relocation survey by Geodetic Engineer Leonardo de Vera indicated Ferrer’s house was within the boundaries of the Vinluans’ property under Plan Psu-26666, encroaching on 1,328 square meters. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, finding Ferrer’s evidence of ownership superior. The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering Ferrer to vacate and restore possession. Ferrer appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint, specifically regarding: (1) the identity and boundaries of the disputed land; (2) the application of laches; and (3) acquisitive prescription.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court’s decision.
1. On factual findings: The Supreme Court, while not a trier of facts, may review evidence when the appellate court’s findings are at variance with the trial court’s or its inferences are manifestly mistaken. Here, the trial court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. The disputed land is separated from the Vinluans’ fishpond by the Agno or Agdao River, which is the western boundary of the fishpond and the eastern boundary of Ferrer’s lot, meaning the disputed land is not part of the fishpond. Testimonial and documentary evidence, including tax declarations, confirmed this separation. The trial court’s factual conclusions are entitled to great weight as it is in a better position to examine evidence and observe witness demeanor.
2. On laches and prescription: The trial court found that private respondents and their predecessor-in-interest never possessed the disputed land or asserted any claim for a considerable time. Ferrer and his father had been in continuous possession for over 30 years in the concept of an owner before the property was registered on March 15, 1965. Another 22 years elapsed before the complaint was filed in 1987. Thus, any rights of the private respondents were lost through laches and prescription. The failure to assert rights for 20 years from registration is fatal under the doctrine of laches.
The Court of Appeals’ decision was set aside, and the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint was reinstated.