REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SPS. DEOGRACIAS AND MILAGROS KABAMALAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Republic versus Kabamalan

The Case

This is the Republic of the Philippines, acting through the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, against Spouses Deogracias and Milagros Kabamalan. The Republic sues to recover possession of a parcel of land in the Majayjay Cadastre in Laguna, on which it had maintained an elementary school and its garden site since 1939. The action is one for recovery of possession, known in our law as accion publiciana — a plenary action to recover the right of possession, independent of title. The case matters because it shows how a registered owner may still lose the right to recover possession through laches, and because it draws the line between an action for possession and an action for quieting of title.

Procedural History

The Republic first filed with the Supreme Court a petition to annul the final order of Branch 27 of the Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna, which had reconstituted the defendants' supposed title. On March 31, 1997, the Supreme Court set aside that order and dismissed the reconstitution case. After that decision became final, the Republic made several demands on the defendants to vacate, and when they refused, it filed the present complaint for recovery of possession before Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna. The trial court decided in favor of the Republic on June 7, 2000, ordering the defendants and all those claiming under them to vacate Lot 2325 and to turn over possession to the plaintiff. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors in their appellants' brief.

Facts

The Republic had been in peaceful, open, continuous and exclusive possession of Lot 2325 of the Majayjay Cadastre since November 22, 1939, when it purchased the lot, as evidenced by a School Site Card dated February 16, 1940. After taking possession, an elementary school was established on the land, with a portion devoted to the school's garden site.

In December 1994, while the school was closed for the Christmas vacation, the defendants entered the garden site through force, fraud and a claim of ownership based on a reconstituted title. They constructed a structure, introduced plantings, and posted a No Trespassing sign, thereby ousting the Republic from possession it had enjoyed for fifty-five years.

Rather than immediately seek eviction, the Republic first sought annulment of the reconstitution order, which the Supreme Court set aside in 1997. The defendants, however, refused to surrender possession. They claimed ownership under a cadastral adjudication in favor of Florencia Rosal and the Gozo heirs, resulting in a decree issued in 1927, and they argued that the land was already registered, so no title could be acquired against the registered owner by prescription.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in upholding the School Site Card as basis for allowing the repossession of Lot 2325, when the land is claimed to be under the operation of the Land Registration Act.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in treating the action strictly as an accion publiciana instead of, at the same time, an action for quieting of title.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in denying probative value to the defendants' exhibits sufficient to bar the claim for possession.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that the issue of possession was laid to rest in the action for annulment of judgment involving reconstitution of title.

Applicable Provisions

The decision defines accion publiciana by reference to Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which governs ejectment. The Court states the definition thus:

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.

This definition fixes the nature of the Republic's action and confirms that it may be brought in the Regional Trial Court regardless of who holds title.

The decision also invokes the rule on registered land and adverse possession, quoting the case of Villegas versus Court of Appeals:

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.

This rule answers the defendants' argument that registration shields them absolutely, by recognizing that laches may bar even a registered owner.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the action for recovery of possession was proper. An accion publiciana lies to recover the right of possession where dispossession has lasted more than a year or was effected by means other than those in Rule 70. The Republic could validly seek recovery of possession lost, irrespective of who holds title.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the claim that the case should have been treated as one for quieting of title. The nullification of the reconstituted title deprived the defendants of any basis to question the action. The Court noted that the certificate of title remained in the names of the original adjudicatees, its authenticity had yet to be established, and the defendants had taken no step for years to transfer it to themselves.

On the third issue, the Court found the defendants guilty of laches for having slept on their rights for fifty-five years before asserting their claim of ownership. Their inaction precluded them from recovering the property.

On the fourth issue, the Court upheld the trial court's finding that the matter of possession had been settled by the annulment of the reconstitution order, and that the defendants' continued refusal to surrender possession justified the action.

Doctrine

An accion publiciana is a plenary action to recover the right of possession, brought when dispossession has lasted more than a year or was effected by means other than those in Rule 70, and it proceeds independently of title. While no title to registered land may be acquired against the registered owner by prescription or adverse possession, even a registered owner may be barred from recovering possession by laches — unreasonable delay in asserting a right that prejudices the adverse party. A party who sleeps on his rights for decades cannot later invoke registration to defeat a possessor's claim.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed in its entirety the decision of Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna, ordering the defendants to vacate Lot 2325 and turn over possession to the Republic.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: even a registered owner may be barred from recovering possession by laches. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between accion publiciana and quieting of title, and the interplay of registration, prescription and laches.