G.R. No. L-17168; October 31, 1962
J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMBROSIO CABILDO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., a registered landowner, filed an ejectment suit against Ambrosio Cabildo for occupying a 100-square-meter portion of its titled Quezon City land since July 1950 without consent. Cabildo defended his possession by tracing a chain of unregistered transfers, ultimately claiming ownership derived from a 1893 possessory information title in favor of Telesforo Deudor. He also sought payment for his improvements should the court rule for the plaintiff.
The trial court found the land was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1267 in Tuason’s name. It determined Cabildo entered the property in 1950 and constructed a house, causing Tuason damage in unrealized rentals. The court concluded Tuason’s Torrens title was indefeasible and could not be defeated by Cabildo’s unregistered purchases, ordering his ejectment and payment of monthly rentals.

ISSUE

The core legal issues are: (1) whether the trial court erred in upholding the plaintiff’s Torrens title over the defendant’s claim of ownership based on an unregistered possessory information title and subsequent sales; (2) whether the trial court’s referral of the reception of evidence to a referee without prior written agreement of the parties rendered its decision void; and (3) whether Republic Act No. 3453 , which suspends ejectment proceedings to allow for government expropriation, applies to bar the action.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. On the first issue, the Court held that a certificate of title under the Torrens system is conclusive evidence of ownership. The registered owner’s title is indefeasible and cannot be overthrown by a claim based on a mere possessory information title or a series of unregistered conveyances. Cabildo, having entered the land without the consent of the registered owner, was correctly declared a usurper.
On the procedural issue, the Court found no reversible error. While Rule 34 ideally requires party agreement for a referee, both parties, through counsel, gave their conformity to the trial court’s suggestion and actively participated in the proceedings before the referee. This constituted substantial compliance, and raising the objection for the first time on appeal was deemed tardy.
Finally, the Court ruled Republic Act No. 3453 inapplicable and unconstitutional as applied. The law’s provision indefinitely suspending ejectment even without the government initiating expropriation proceedings amounts to a confiscation of private property without due process. It allows an illegal occupant to remain indefinitely, depriving the owner of dominical rights without compensation or a valid expropriation case. Therefore, it cannot bar Tuason’s rightful action to recover its property.