LAUREANA TAMBOT, ISIDORA TAMBOT, AURELIA TAMBOT, ANSELMA ASPIRAS AND CRESENCIA ASPIRAS, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, BERNABE S. REYES AND FILOMENA ALMUETE, R…

The petitioners have appealed the decision dated May 11, 1977 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 58360 reversing that of the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan which annulled the deed of sale made by
Rufino Tambot, brother of plaintiffs, of the property which they owned
in common, declared the plaintiffs (herein petitioners) to be the
absolute owners of 285.6 sq.m. out of 357 sq.m. of the said property,
and ordered the defendants (vendees of the property) to vacate the same.
The Court of Appeals declared the defendants the lawful owners of the
disputed property and ordered the issuance of a new title for the same
in their names.

The background facts are recited in the decision of the Court of
Appeals as follows:

“There are two lots (Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2) situated in
Pozorrubio, Pangasinan. Om May 31, 1931, they were covered by Original
Certificate of Title No. 46641 of the land records of Pangasinan issued
in the name of TARCELA de Guzman, who died in 1932, survived by five
children : Laureana, Isidora, Aurelio, Celestina and Rufino, all
surnamed Tambot. Celestina had passed away, leaving two children named
Anselma and Cresencia Aspiras.

“Lot No. 2, containing 532 square meters, is the LAND involved
in this appeal. Although the LAND was titled in the name of TARCELA, the
corresponding tax declarations was in the name of her sister, MARGARITA
de Guzman, now also deceased.

“According to Rufino, the LAND really belonged to MARGARITA,
whose heirs included Fernando Yango and Felix Perez. In 1938, when the
said heirs wanted to sell the LAND, he had to execute the corresponding
deed of sale because the title was in the name of TARCELA. Thus, on May
26, 1938, he sold 357 square meters of the LAND (the DISPUTED PROPERTY)
to Cipriano Calongcagon: The deed of sale included the following
paragraph —

“En testimonio de la cual, firmo la presente de mi propio
puño Y letra, hoy en Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, I.F. a 26 de Mayo de 1938, y
que firmaran conmigo mis hermanas en señal de conformidad, como tambien
mis primos Fernando Yango y Felix Perez.’

“The deed of sale was actually signed by Fernando Yango and
Felix Perez and by Laureana, Isidora, and Aurelia Tambot (Exhibit ‘B’).

“On the same date of May 26, 1938, Rufino also sold 220 square
meters of the LAND to Maximo PACETES with right to repurchase. Rufino
has claimed that the said 220 square meters had already been acquired by
him from the heirs of MARGARITA. PACETES built a house on the portion
of the LAND sold to him, and has claimed ownership of the same on the
ground that Rufino had failed to exercise his right to repurchase.

“After Calongcagon acquired the DISPUTED PROPERTY, he sold it on
August 1, 1938 to Maria Estarls, whose heirs, on July 27, 1955, in
turn, sold it to the DEFENDANTS herein. Subsequently, DEFENDANTS
declared the DISPUTED PROPERTY as their property, and paid taxes
thereon. DEFENDANTS have planted bananas and other fruit trees in the
DISPUTED PROPERTY and reaped the products produced therefrom.

“On January 6, 1952, PACETES caused the annotation of an adverse
claim on OCT No. 46641 in regards to the 220 square meters of the LAND
sold to him.

“On August 1, 1955, DEFENDANTS also caused an adverse claim to
be annotated on the same title in regards to the DISPUTED PROPERTY.

“Another adverse claim was annotated by DEFENDANTS on January 2,
1957.

“On October 1, 1969, the sales to Calongcagon, to Maria Estaris,
and to DEFENDANTS were annotated on OCT No. 46641.

“On May 27, 1974, Laureana, Isidora, and Aurelia, as children of
TARCELA, together with Anselma and Cresencia, as TARCELAS’S
grandchildren (collectively called PLAINTIFFS), filed suit (CASE BELOW)
against DEFENDANTS for the recovery of the DISPUTED PROPERTY.

“x x x x x x x x x

“We view the situation as one where the equities are in favor of
DEFENDANTS, because they and their predecessors-in-interest have been
in possession of the DISPUTED PROPERTY for 36 years.

“x x x x x x x x x

“When the DISPUTED PROPERTY was sold with the knowledge and
consent of Laureana, Isidora, and Aurelia, they had, in effect,
repudiated their inheritances, and the loss by prescription of the
inheritances, even if then existent, started to commence.

“Calongcagon and his successors-in-interest, including
DEFENDANTS, acquired the DISPUTED PROPERTY on May 26, 1938 through
Exhibit B, the sale executed by Rufino. There can be no doubt that
Calongcagon grin and Maria Estaris (who died in 1955) took possession of
the DISPUTED PROPERTY under claim of title up to 1948. x x x.

“Calongcagon and his successors-in-interest began their
possession of the DISPUTED PROPERTY with a just or colorable title.
Rufino executed the Deed of Sale (Exhibit B) alleging formal ownership
of the DISPUTED PROPERTY although he was acting for the heirs of
MARGARITA whom he believed were the actual owners, in a document also
signed by Laureana, Isidora, and Aurelia, as conforming to the sale. x x
x.

“x x x Calongcagon and his successors-in-interest had been in
possession of the DISPUTED PROPERTY from May 26, 1938 to May 26, 1974,
or for a period of 36 years. x x x.

“It is worthwhile noting that, according to Rufino, the heirs of
TARCELA had partitioned Lot No. 1, without partitioning the LAND (Lot
No. 2). That is an indication that PLAINTIFFS had, at some time in the
past, conceded that the LAND, including the DISPUTED PROPERTY, was no
longer theirs to claim and partition. After all, they had signed- their
conformity in Exhibit B.

“x x x x x x x x x

“In the present case, it is clear to Us that PLAINTIFFS are
chargeable with laches. Rufino Tambot is their only brother and the
oldest. He testified for the DEFENDANTS and stated that after their
mother TARCELA died, knowing that of the two lots included in OCT 46641,
only Lot 1, belonged to their mother while Lot 2, the DISPUTED
PROPERTY, belonged to MARGARITA, their mother’s sister, he and
PLAINTIFFS partitioned only Lot 1 among themselves. He also explained
that the reason OCT 46641 was issued in his mother’s name alone was
because by the time it was issued, MARGARITA had already died. That was
also why when the DISPUTED PROPERTY was initially sold to Calongcagon on
May 26, 1938, besides the heirs of MARGARITA, he had to sign the Deed
of Sale, which was also signed by and conformed to by Laureana, Isidora,
and Aurelia (Exhibit B).

“DEFENDANTS had enclosed the DISPUTED PROPERTY first with barbed
wire and then with hollow blocks, although the latter was not
completed. And they had also planted banana and other fruit trees and
harvested the fruits. Laureana testified that she knew that the taxes
were being paid by DEFENDANTS and that PACETES had constructed a house
on the LAND. However, PLAINTIFFS did nothing from 1938, and waited only
until May 27, 1974, to vindicate their alleged rights to the DISPUTED
PROPERTY. x x x.” (pp. 19-26, Rollo.)

The main argument of the petitioners in their petition for review
of the decision of the Court of Appeals is that the Court of Appeals
erred in holding that they (petitioners) had lost their right to recover
the land from the private respondents by laches and that the latter, on
the other hand, have acquired title to it by acquisitive prescription.
Petitioners allege that the defense of prescription was not alleged by
the private respondents in their answer to the complaint in the court
below, and that, in any case, as the property is registered under the
Torrens system, it may not be acquired by prescription.

The
records show, however, that the defense of laches and/or prescription
was in fact pleaded in the private respondents’ answer to the complaint
in Civil Case No. 2693 of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, as
follows:

“3. That the defendants have been in actual and peaceful
possession of the land and without interruption for more than eighteen
(18) years now;

“4. That the defendants’ cause of action has already been
barred by the Statute of Limitations.” (p. 5, Rollo.)

Furthermore, the trial court, in its statement of the case,
observed:

“x x x The defendants likewise alleged in their answer and also
in their memorandum that even granting that the plaintiffs still have a
right to claim the same from the defendants, [it] have (sic) long
prescribed since the defendants have been in possession of this parcel
of land from July 27, 1955 to the present. ” (p. 18, Record on Appeal.)

The Court of Appeals’ ruling that the private respondents, by
continuous, open, and adverse possession of the land for more than
thirty-six (36) years as owner, had acquired title through prescription
and that the petitioners’ title is not protected by Section 46 of the
Land Registration Act (which provides that a registered owner’s title
may not be lost through prescription) because the petitioners are not
the registered owners of the land in question, finds support in various
decisions of this Court.

In Wright, Jr., et al. vs. Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Co., 11 SCRA 508, where the mining company’s
possession of the mining claims under color of title began since 1936
while the appellants whose father had been the patentee of those claims
did not lift a finger to assert their title or right for over 25 years,
this Court held:

“x x x Assuming that Albert P. Wright ever held a Torrens title
to the claims (which is not adequately shown), and that his ownership
and that of his heirs may not be defeated by prescription, still those
rights have become barred by their inactivity and laches for nearly
thirty years. This long inaction, coupled with renewed activity after
total destruction of official records, strongly indicate an
unmeritorious claim.”

In Heirs of Batiog Lacamen vs. Heirs of Laruan, 65 SCRA
606, Laruan conveyed a parcel of land in La Trinidad, Benguet, to Batiog
Lacamen in 1928 for P300. The deed was acknowledged before a notary in
Baguio City, and immediately after the sale, Laruan delivered the
certificate of title No. 420 to Lacamen who entered in possession of the
land without securing a transfer certificate of title in his name. He
introduced improvements and paid the taxes. After his death in 1942, his
heirs remained in possession of the land and also paid the taxes.
However, they discovered in 1957 that Laruan’s heirs (Laruan had died in
1938) had obtained a new owner’s copy of Certificate of Title No. 420
by alleging in a petition filed in court that their copy had been lost
or destroyed. Lacamen’s heirs sued for reconveyance. Laruan’s heirs
alleged that the sale to Lacamen was null and void under Act No. 2874
and Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Mindanao and Sulu. This Court
upheld the title of Lacamen and his heirs despite the invalidity of the
sale.

“It has been held that while a person may not acquire title to
the registered property through continuous adverse possession, in
derogation of the title of the original registered owner, the heir of
the latter, however, may lose his right to recover back the posses on of
such property and the title thereto, by reason of laches. Much more
should It be in the instant case where the possession: of nearly 30
years or almost half a century now is in pursuance of sale which
regrettably did not bear the approval of the executive authority but
which the vendor never questioned during his life time. Laruan’s laches
extends to his heirs, the respondents-appellants herein, since they
stand in privity with him.”

Where a period of 37 years elapsed between the sale of land by the
patentee (Mejia) to Zacarias Ciscar and the action of Mejia’s heirs to
recover it from the vendee (Gamponia) of an heir of Ciscar, the Court
ruled that:

“While the defendant may not be considered as having acquired
title by virtue of his and his predecessors’ long continued possession
(37 years), the original owner’s right to recover back the possession of
the property and the title thereto from the defendant has, by the
latter’ s long period of possession and by patentee’s inaction and
neglect, been converted into a stale demand.” (Mejia de Lucas vs.
Gamponia, 100 Phil. 277, 280.)

In Vda. de Lima vs. Tio, 32 SCRA 516, where the
plaintiff’s paraphernal property was sold in 1936 by her husband without
her consent and her action to recover it was filed only in 1964, or
after 28 years, we likewise ruled:

“It is now an established doctrine that inaction and neglect
convert what otherwise could be a valid claim into a stale demand ….
Such passivity in the face of what might have given rise to an action in
court is visited with the loss of such a right. That in essence is what
laches signifies. Nor does ignorance resulting from Inexcusable
negligence suffice to explain such failure to file seasonably the
necessary suit.”

Similarly, in Arquino vs. Aparis, 22 SCRA 411, Rodriguez
vs. Rodriguez, 20 SCRA 908, Laurel-Manila vs. Galvan, 20
SCRA 198, and Miguel vs. Catalino, 26 SCRA 234, this Court held
that the ownership of registered land may be lost thru laches.

WHEREFORE,
finding that the decision of the Court of Appeals is in accordance with
law and applicable jurisprudence, the petition for review is denied for
lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea,
JJ., concur.