G.R. No. L-46364; April 6, 1990
Sulpicia Jimenez and Toribio Matias, petitioners, vs. Vicente Fernandez alias Hospicio Fernandez and Teodora Grado, respondents.

FACTS

The land in question is a 436-square meter portion of a larger parcel registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 82275 in the name of petitioner Sulpicia Jimenez. The entire property was originally owned by Fermin Jimenez. Upon his death, it was registered in 1933 under Original Certificate of Title No. 50933 in the names of his son Carlos Jimenez and his granddaughter Sulpicia Jimenez (Carlos’s niece) in equal pro-indiviso shares. Carlos Jimenez died in 1936. His alleged illegitimate daughter, Melecia Cayabyab, took possession of the eastern 436-square meter portion. In 1944, Melecia sold this portion to Edilberto Cagampan, who subsequently exchanged it with respondent Teodora Grado, who has occupied it since. In 1969, Sulpicia Jimenez executed an affidavit adjudicating unto herself the share of the deceased Carlos, claiming to be his sole heir, leading to the issuance of TCT No. 82275 in her name alone. In 1970, Sulpicia and her husband filed an action to recover the 436-square meter portion from Teodora Grado.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the petitioner, as the registered owner under a Torrens title, can recover possession of the disputed portion from the respondents, who claim ownership through a chain of transactions originating from an alleged heir of the deceased co-owner.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, reversing the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on the rules of succession and the indefeasibility of a Torrens title. First, the Court found that respondents failed to conclusively prove that Melecia Cayabyab was the illegitimate daughter of Carlos Jimenez. Crucially, even assuming she was, she had no right to succeed to his estate. Carlos Jimenez died in 1936, before the effectivity of the present Civil Code. Under the applicable old Civil Code of 1889, an illegitimate child without any acknowledgment had no successional rights. Therefore, Melecia acquired no ownership rights over Carlos’s share and could not validly transfer any title to Cagampan or, subsequently, to Grado.
Second, the Court upheld the imprescriptible nature of the petitioner’s action to recover possession based on her Torrens title. The doctrine of laches, applied by the Court of Appeals, was misapplied. Laches is an equitable doctrine and cannot be invoked to defeat justice or perpetrate fraud. The petitioner’s delay in asserting her rights, including executing the affidavit of self-adjudication in 1969, did not bar her recovery given the weakness of the respondents’ claim and the paramount need to protect the integrity of the Torrens system. The right of a registered owner to recover possession based on that title is imprescriptible. Consequently, Sulpicia Jimenez was declared the sole and absolute owner entitled to possession of the disputed land.