REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SPS. DEOGRACIAS AND MILAGROS KABAMALAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
TAGLE, J.:
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Plaintiff-Republic has been in the peaceful, open, continuous and exclusive possession of Lot 2325 of the Majayjay Cadastre in Laguna since November 22, 1939 when it purchased the said lot as evidenced by a School Site Card dated February 16, 1940. After taking possession thereof, an elementary school was established thereat but a portion is devoted for the garden site of Majayjay Elementary School.
In December 1994, defendants entered the portion devoted for the garden site of the school while it was closed for the Christmas vacation, through force, fraud and claim of ownership based on a reconstituted title. Thereupon, defendants constructed a structure on the garden site, introduced plantings and posted a “No Trespassing” sign on the land; thereby ousting and depriving plaintiff from the possession of the subject land which it had been enjoying from 1939 to 1994 or for 55 long years.
Instead of immediately seeking the eviction of defendants from the area, plaintiff filed before this Court a petition for annulment of the final order/judgment dated April 2, 1994 of RTC, Br. 27 of the Sta. Cruz, Laguna which reconstituted defendants’ supposed title to Lot 2325. On March 31, 1997, We set aside the April 2, 1994 Order of the RTC reconstituting defendants’ title and dismissed the reconstitution case.
Upon finality of our March 31, 1997 decision, plaintiff made several demands upon the defendants to vacate the subject lot. Due to defendants’ continuing refusal, plaintiff was constrained to file the present action for recovery of possession before the RTC Br. 26 and a decision was rendered in its favor and against the defendants.
Hence, the assignment of the following errors in defendants-appellants’ brief, to wit:
I
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT UPHELD APPELLEE’S SCHOOL SITE CARD AS ITS PRIMARY BASIS TO ALLOW THE REPOSSESSION OF LOT NO. 2325 OF MAJAYJAY CADASTRE, WHEN THE LAND IS PLACED ALREADY UNDER THE OPERATIVE ACT OF ACT 496.II
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT TREATED THE ACTION STRICTLY AN ACCION PUBLICIANA INSTEAD AT THE SAME TIME, AN ACTION FOR QUIETING OF TITLE.III
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENY THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF EXHIBITS “6” AND “7” SUFFICIENT TO BAR APPELLEE’S CLAIM FOR POSSESSION OF LOT 2325.IV
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT HOLDS THAT THE ISSUE OF POSSESSION WAS LAID TO REST IN AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT INVOLVING RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 37565.
Appellants postulate that the lower court erred in limiting the issue in the present case to whether or not the appellee has the right to recover possession of the subject lot. In so doing, it debunked appellants’ assertion of ownership of the land under the Land Registration Act. Appellants opine that the subject lot was already placed under the operation of the land registration law by the issuance of a decree of registration. Being already registered, no title in derogation to that of the registered owner can be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Necessarily, the issue of possession can no longer be entertained as the land is a registered property.
Appellants assert that appellee’s claim of having purchased and possessed for a long period of time the subject lot on the basis of the School Site Card is of no moment inasmuch as there was already a decision rendered by the cadastral court in Cadastral Case No. 19, Cadastral Record No. 730, clearly showing that Lot 2325 has been adjudicated to Florencia Rosal, a widow, ½ share; Pio Gozo, married to Eugenia Estella, 1/6 share; Potenciana Gozo, married to Tomas Kabamalan, 1/6 share; and Maria Gozo, single, 1/6 share. Witness Gerardo Kabamalan traced his relationship to Florencia Rosal & Potenciana Gozo, claiming that Florencia Rosal was her grandmother while Potenciana Gozo, daughter of Florencia, was his mother. He further declared that Lot 2325 is now owned by his mother, Potenciana Gozo, to whom it was adjudicated in a judicial partition. Said decision of the cadastral court had become final, resulting in the issuance of Decree No. 240532 on January 18, 1927, as certified[2] by the Land Registration Authority. The decision of the cadastral court antedated the School Site Card issued on February 16, 1940 by at least 13 years.
Thus, appellants submit that the instant case should have been treated as one for quieting of title, instead of a simple dispute of who between the parties has the better right of possession. According to appellants, the most serious blunder committed by the lower court was its finding that the issue of possession was laid to rest in the petition for annulment of judgment that was decided in favor of appellee by this Court on March 31, 1997, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 37565.
It is the posture of appellants that the Order relative to the reconstitution of title was set aside by this Court only because of the failure of petitioner to notify all the adjoining owners and other interested parties as required by Secs. 13 & 14 of Republic Act No. 26 or the Reconstitution Act.
Traversing appellants’ contention, appellee maintains that an accion publiciana is a plenary action in an ordinary civil proceedings in the RTC to determine the better right of possession of realty, independent of title. Its main object is the recovery of physical possession of realty and its aim is to determine who has actual physical possession thereof so as to prevent disorder and breaches of the peace. Appellee argues that the act of appellants in forcibly and fraudulently disposing and ousting it from its actual, open, continuous and exclusive possession of Lot 2325 in 1994 by using the reconstituted title and in enclosing it with bamboo fence with a “No Trespassing” sign posted thereat makes a case for accion publiciana or recovery of possession. Moreover, despite the finality of this Court’s decision dated March 31, 1997 setting aside the April 2, 1994 Order of Br. 27, RTC Sta. Cruz, Laguna, appellants still refused to surrender the possession of subject land to appellee, prompting it to file a complaint for recovery of possession.
Appellee opines that OCT 4076, the supposed basis of appellants in claiming ownership, is still in the names of the original adjudicatees. Hence, the trial court did not err when it denied appellants’ prayer to be declared absolute owners of the disputed lot. According to appellee, appellants did not plead nor pray their claim of ownership in their amended answer. And even if appellants did so, the same cannot still be considered since the trial court has not acquired jurisdiction over the third parties-adjudicatees.
We deny the appeal.
Plaintiff’s action for recovery of possession of Lot 2325 of the Majayjay Cadastre in Laguna is proper. As defined by the Supreme Court in the case of De Leon vs. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 166, an accion publiciana is a plenary action to recover the right of possession when dispossession has lasted more than a year or when dispossession was effected by means other than those mentioned in Rule 70 of Rules of Court. As an ejectment case filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty, appellee could validly seek recovery of possession that was lost, irrespective of who has the title thereto.
While appellee did not immediately seek the eviction of appellants from the land after it was forcibly and fraudulently ousted therefrom and instead sought the annulment of the reconstituted title, nonetheless, it is not precluded from claiming possession thereof even if the reconstituted title was annulled by this Court on mere technicality. The nullification of the reconstituted title has deprived appellants of any basis in questioning the action filed by appellee. As earlier intimated, OCT No. 4097 is still in the name of the adjudicatees and its authenticity has still to be established. Besides, no action has been taken by the appellants for several years to transfer said title in their names. As such, appellants are guilty of laches for having slept on their rights for 55 long years before asserting their claim of ownership. Their inaction or passivity in asserting their rights over the disputed property preclude them already from recovering the same.[3]
The Supreme enunciated in the case of Villegas vs. Court of Appeals, 351 SCRA 69, that “while it is an express provision of law that no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession, it is likewise an enshrined rule that even a registered owner may be barred from recovering possession of property by virtue of laches.”
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The decision dated June 7, 2000 of Br. 26, RTC of Sta. Cruz, Laguna is AFFIRMED in its entirety.
SO ORDERED.
Buzon, (Chairman) and Maambong, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, pp. 23-35.
[2] Exhibits “7”. p. 209.
[3] Ignacio vs. Basilio, 366 SCRA 15.