G.R. No. L-14516. June 30, 1961. VICTOR DE LOS REYES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PIO PASTORFIDE, defendant-appellant.
FACTS

Victor de los Reyes, the registered owner of Lot No. 52 under the Torrens system, filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Pio Pastorfide. Reyes alleged that Pastorfide had illegally occupied a portion of his land since 1945 and had been harvesting its fruits. He sought restitution, payment of rentals, and reimbursement for the value of the nuts. In his defense, Pastorfide claimed ownership, asserting he purchased the land from the government in 1935 and had been in open, continuous possession since 1927. He also claimed to have introduced improvements, including coconut trees.
The trial court ruled in favor of de los Reyes, ordering Pastorfide to vacate the land, pay back rentals, reimburse a resurvey fee, and pay attorney’s fees. Pastorfide appealed directly to the Supreme Court, contesting the award of rentals and the denial of his claim for reimbursement of improvements, and assailing the charges for the resurvey and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Pastorfide can assert ownership or a right to possession over the land despite the existence of a Torrens title in de los Reyes’s name. Subsidiary issues involve the propriety of awarding back rentals, reimbursing improvements, and charging the resurvey fee and attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modifications. The core legal principle is the indefeasibility of a Torrens title. The land was originally granted via homestead patent to Mora Amsia in 1922, with a corresponding Original Certificate of Title. As a successor-in-interest, de los Reyes held a valid Torrens title (TCT No. 38). Consequently, upon its original adjudication and registration, the land ceased to be part of the public domain and became private property beyond the control of the Director of Lands.
Pastorfide’s subsequent 1935 purchase from the Bureau of Lands was therefore void, as the government could no longer dispose of land already titled as private property. His sales application was correctly cancelled. Furthermore, his claim of acquisitive prescription fails. Under Section 46 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act), land registered under the Torrens system cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Thus, Pastorfide had no valid claim of ownership or right to possession.
Regarding the monetary awards, the Court upheld the grant of back rentals. Since de los Reyes was unlawfully deprived of the use of his property, he was entitled to reasonable compensation. However, Pastorfide’s claim for reimbursement for his alleged improvements was a factual matter, and the trial court’s finding—based on inconsistencies in his evidence, such as tax declarations—that he introduced no substantial improvements was binding on appeal. The Court deleted the awards for the resurvey fee and attorney’s fees. The resurvey was for de los Reyes’s own benefit to determine boundaries and was not included in the complaint. Attorney’s fees were unjustified as Pastorfide’s defense, though erroneous, was based on an honest belief in his claim, not malice or bad faith. The decision was affirmed with these modifications.