GR L 67284; (March, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-67284. March 18, 1985.
TEOFISTO, FELICISIMO and MAXIMO, all surnamed UMBAY, and FILOMENA, FRANCISCO, SUSANA, CELERINA and JOSEFA, all surnamed ENANORIA, Petitioners, vs. PLACIDO ALECHA, NICOLASA LABAJO and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, Respondents.
FACTS
Natalio Enanoria was the registered owner of Lot No. 5280 in Carcar, Cebu, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 10933 issued in 1922. Upon his death in 1924, his heirs succeeded to the property. In 1963, the heirs commissioned a survey to relocate the lot and discovered that a 500-square-meter portion was occupied by Placido Alecha, the owner of the adjoining Lot No. 5281. Alecha refused to vacate and even removed the concrete monuments.
The heirs filed an action for recovery of possession. A subsequent relocation survey conducted by a Bureau of Lands surveyor, appointed by the trial court, confirmed the encroachment. The trial court ruled in favor of the heirs and ordered Alecha to vacate. However, the Intermediate Appellate Court reversed the decision and dismissed the complaint, prompting the heirs’ appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the action of the registered owners’ heirs to recover a portion of the registered land is barred by prescription or laches.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court and reinstated the trial court’s decision. The Court held that an action to recover possession of land covered by a Torrens title is imprescriptible. Citing Section 46 of the Land Registration Act (now Section 47 of the Property Registration Decree), the Court emphasized that no title to registered land can be acquired by prescription or adverse possession in derogation of the registered owner’s title. This protection extends to the registered owner’s hereditary successors, who merely continue the personality of the predecessor-in-interest.
The defense of laches is likewise unavailing. Laches requires a waiver or abandonment of a right through neglect. The heirs, described as poor and ignorant rustics, were unaware of the encroachment until the 1963 survey. Their subsequent filing of the suit negates any intention to waive their rights. The Torrens system’s fundamental purpose is to guarantee the indefeasibility of title, allowing the registered owner to rest secure without the obligation to constantly defend possession. Therefore, Alecha’s adverse possession, regardless of duration, cannot defeat the imprescriptible Torrens title.