G.R. No. 98709 May 13, 1993
MAGDALENA LLENARES, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and APOLINAR ZABELLA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Magdalena Llenares filed a complaint for recovery of possession and quieting of title over a parcel of land. The land, originally Cadastral Lot No. 4804-D (later Lot No. 5015), was co-owned by Juan Zabella and Anastacio Llenares. On December 21, 1929, Anastacio Llenares sold his one-half share to Ariston Zabella, father of private respondent Apolinar Zabella. After cadastral proceedings, Decree No. 54398 was issued, and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 43073 was issued in the names of Juan Zabella and Anastacio Llenares in July 1937. Anastacio Llenares died on March 27, 1931, leaving petitioner as his sole heir. On June 22, 1976, petitioner adjudicated to herself her father’s one-half share via a “Salaysay ng Pagmamana,” annotated on OCT No. 43073. The lot was later subdivided, and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 28170 was issued in petitioner’s name for Lot No. 5015-A, corresponding to Anastacio’s share. Private respondent, claiming ownership through the 1929 deed of sale, dispossessed petitioner in 1976 and filed an adverse claim annotated on the title on February 17, 1977. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring her the absolute owner and ordering the cancellation of the adverse claim. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, declaring private respondent the true owner and ordering petitioner to execute a deed of conveyance.

ISSUE

Whether the private respondent had acquired ownership of the land in question by prescription or whether the petitioner’s action is barred by laches.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the RTC decision. The Court held that prescription and laches are unavailing against the registered owner of titled land. A title issued pursuant to a cadastral proceeding is conclusive and binding against the whole world. The deed of sale executed by Anastacio Llenares in 1929 was deemed barred by the principle of res judicata after the final judgment in the cadastral case. The Court found that the private respondent and his predecessors-in-interest had slept on their rights by not asserting their claim during the cadastral proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the defense of laches was not pleaded in the answer and was therefore deemed waived. The action for reconveyance, based on an implied trust arising from the alleged fraud or mistake in the registration, would have prescribed in ten years, which period had not been shown to have lapsed. Therefore, petitioner, as the registered owner, is entitled to possession and the cancellation of the adverse claim.