GALICANO GOLLOY, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE VALDEZ, JR., CONSOLACION VALDEZ, LOURDES VALDEZ, SOLEDAD VALDEZ AND BENNY MADRIAGA, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the September 29, 1977 Decision*
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. L-43359-R, entitled Galicano Golloy
vs. Jose J. Valdez Jr., et al., affirming the judgment of the then Court of First Instance of Tarlac; and the November
29, 1977 Resolution of the same court denying the motion for
reconsideration.

Herein petitioner, for
more than twenty (20) years, has
been the registered owner and in possession of a 41,545-square meter
parcel of land covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 45764.  The Southwest portion of this land is bounded
by herein private respondents’ land which is covered by Certificate of Title
No. 8565.  Sometime in February, 1966,
private respondents subdivided their land among themselves.  In the course of the subdivision, private
respondents caused to be placed two (2) monuments inside the Southwest portion
of petitioner’s land.  Hence, petitioner
filed with the then Court of First Instance of Tarlac,
presided over by Judge Arturo B. Santos, an action to quiet title.  The same was docketed therein as Civil Case No. 4312.

Private respondents, in their filed motion to dismiss with
counterclaim, alleged that they never encroached upon the landholding of
petitioner and nothing has been placed on his land which would create any cloud
thereon; and that the truth of the matter was that they merely subdivided their
own land according to their title and therefore there was nothing for petitioner to quiet or
remove cloud on his title.

In the pre-trial of December 12, 1967, the parties agreed that
inasmuch as the only issue in dispute referred ultimately to the question of
the boundaries of their respective lots, the same might be resolved by
appointing a public surveyor of the Bureau of Lands to relocate the disputed area with the end in view of determining
the true and correct boundaries of their parcels.

The trial court, in line with the above-said agreement, in an
Order dated December 13, 1968,
ordered the Director of Lands to appoint an impartial public land surveyor to
conduct the relocation survey on the
disputed area.

On May 20, 1968, Jovino B. Dauz, Surveyor of the Bureau of Lands, Dagupan City, submitted his Report (Record on Appeal, pp. 21-28, Rollo, p. 34), which states in
substance, that petitioner’s land is Lot A of the Subdivision plan, Psd-1413,
being a portion of the land described in Original Certificate of Title No. 126
in the name of Agustin Golloy (No. 11, Record on
Appeal, p. 23); that the land titled under OCT No. 126 was surveyed on March
18, 1918 and subsequently titled and registered on August 15, 1919 (No. 12,
Ibid); that on the other hand, private respondents’ land is Lot No. 1, 11-8218 in the name of Domingo Balanga, surveyed on March 11, 1913 and originally titled and
registered on March 1, 1918 (No. 15, Ibid.); that there are overlappings
on the boundaries of the two (2) lands (Nos. 226, 27, 28 and 29, Ibid.); and
that the overlappings are due to the defect in the
survey on petitioner’s land since it did not duly conform with the previously
approved survey of Lot 1, 11-3218 under OCT 8565 (No. 25, Ibid).  He ended
his report by submitting that private respondents’ land, TCT No. 8565, prevails
over petitioner’s land, TCT No. 45764, since the former was surveyed and titled
ahead.

On July 8,
1968, petitioner filed a Memorandum (Record on Appeal, pp. 28-35).

On October 21, 1968,
the trial court ruled in favor of private respondents.  The decretal
portion of the decision, reads:

“WHEREFORE, conformably to
the agreement of the parties during the pre-trial on December 12, 1967, this
Court renders judgment in accordance with the aforesaid surveyor’s Report and
Relocation Plan; and the plaintiff and the defendants are accordingly directed
to abide by and respect the boundaries indicated on the relocation plan
of Surveyor Dauz which he found to be the
true and correct boundaries of the properties covered by TCT Nos. 8567 and
45764 of the land records of Tarlac.

“For lack of proof, the claim
for damages by plaintiff and the defendants are both denied.

“No pronouncement on costs.

“SO
ORDERED.” (Rollo,
p. 14)

Petitioner, after his motion for reconsideration was denied by
the trial court, appealed the said decision, which was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, in a Decision promulgated on September
29, 1977 (Rollo, pp. 22-29).  A motion for reconsideration was filed, but
the same was denied in a Resolution promulgated on November 29,
1977 (Ibid., pp. 30-32).  Hence, the instant petition.

The Second Division of this Court, in a Resolution dated January 4, 1978, resolved to require
the respondents to comment (Ibid., p. 36); which comment was filed on February 14, 1978 (Ibid., pp. 41-42).  Petitioners filed a reply thereto on March 27, 1978 (Ibid., p. 47) in compliance
with the resolution of February 14, 1978
(Ibid., p. 44).

In a Resolution dated April
5, 1978 the Court gave due course to the petition (Ibid., p.
52).  Petitioner filed his Brief on January 10, 1981 (Ibid., p 60).  Private respondents having failed to file their brief within the required period, the case was
considered submitted for decision
without private respondents’ brief in the resolution of February 8,
1981 (Ibid., p. 66).

The sole issue in this
case is – who between the two
title holders is entitled to the land
in dispute?

The instant petition is
impressed with merit.

It must be stated that
private respondents and their predecessor or predecessors never possessed, much less, claimed the overlapped portions.  Petitioner has been always in possession of the same in the concept of an owner, and his possession was disturbed only
in February, 1966, when the private respondents caused to be placed two (2)
monuments inside his land.  It will be
recalled that, as per report of Surveyor Jovino B. Dauz (Record on Appeal, pp. 21-28), private respondents’ land (TCT-8565 is Lot No. 1, 11-8218) was
surveyed on March 11, 1913 and originally titled and registered on March 1, 1918 in the name of Dominga
Balanga.  On
the other hand, petitioner’s land (TCT No. 45764) is Lot-A
of Subdivision plan, Psd-14013, a
portion of land described in OCT No. 126) was surveyed on March 18, 1918 and subsequently titled and registered in the
name of Agustin Galloy.  The
said lands, having been surveyed and thereafter registered, it follows that monuments
were placed therein to indicate their respective boundaries. 
It is hardly persuasive that private respondents’ predecessor, Dominga Balanga,
believing that she has a
rightful claim to the overlapped
portions, did not make any move
to question the placement of the monuments. 
She could have easily objected to the placement and pointed out that the
placement of the monuments excluded the overlapped portions from her
property.  However, no such objection was
made.  These facts could only be
construed to mean that private respondents’ predecessor, Dominga
Balanga, never believed that she has a right and
legal claim to the overlapped portion. 
There appears to be no evidence to support claims of repeated demands
against petitioner to refrain from cultivating the contested portion, much less
an action filed in court to enforce such demands.

Besides, considering that
petitioner and his predecessor or
predecessors have been in
continuous possession in the concept of an owner, for almost fifty (50) years
(from August 15, 1919, when the property was registered, up to February, 1966,
when the private respondents caused the placement of two (2) monuments inside
his land), the latter if they have any right at all to the overlapped portion,
are guilty of laches.

In the case of Caragay-Layno vs. Court
of Appeals (133 SCRA 718, 723-724 [1984]), this Court stated –

“Of significance is the
fact, as disclosed by the evidence, that for twenty (20) years from the date of
registration of title in 1947 up to 1967 when this suit for recovery of
possession was instituted, neither the deceased DE VERA up to the time of his
death in 1951, nor his
successors-in-interest, had taken steps to possess or lay adverse claim to the disputed
portion.  They may, therefore be said to
he guilty of laches as would effectively derail their cause action. 
Administrator ESTRADA took interest in recovering the said portion only
when he noticed the discrepancy in areas in the Inventory of Property and in
the title.”

“The foregoing conclusion does not necessarily wreak havoc
on the indefeasibility of a Torrens
title.  For, mere possession of certificate of title under
the Torrens System is not conclusive as to the holder’s true ownership
of all the property described therein for he does not by virtue of said certificate
alone become the owner of the land illegally
included.”

In a more recent case, the case of Lola vs. Court of Appeals (145
SCRA 439, 449 [1986]), this Court ruled:

“We also agree with the petitioners that laches effectively bars the respondent from recovering the
lot in dispute.

“Although the defense of prescription is unavailing to the
petitioners because, admittedly, the title to Lot No. 5517 is still registered in the name of
respondent, still the petitioners have acquired title to it by virtue of
the equitable principle of laches due to respondent’s
failure to assert her
claims and ownership for thirty two (32) years.

“There are precedents for this ruling.  In the following cases, we upheld the
equitable defense of laches and ruled that the long
inaction and delay of the title holder in asserting his right over the disputed
lot bars him from recovering the same.”

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the
Court of Appeals under review is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE and a new one rendered ordering private respondents to
cause the segregation of the disputed portion presently occupied by the
petitioner Galicano Golloy
and reconvey the same to the latter and after the
segregation to order the Register of Deeds of Tarlac
to issue a new certificate of title covering said portion in favor of the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera, J., (Chairman), no part.

*
Tenth Division; Penned by Justice Simeon M. Gopengco
and concurred in by Justices Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera and Vicente G. Ericta.