FRANCISCA SUMAMPONG, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF BENIGNA SUMAMPONG-SARATE, REPRESENTED BY ARTEMIO SARATE AND TOMAS SARATE, RESPONDENTS.

Sumampong versus Heirs of Sumampong-Sarate

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Francisca Sumampong against the Heirs of Benigna Sumampong-Sarate, represented by Artemio Sarate and Tomas Sarate. The heirs sued to recover possession of a registered parcel of land, to quiet title, to cancel the tax declaration issued in Francisca's name, and to claim damages. The case matters because it pits a notarized deed of sale and decades of occupation against a Torrens certificate of title, and it asks whether laches can defeat a registered owner's right to recover registered land.

Procedural History

The heirs of Benigna filed their complaint for recovery of possession, quieting of title, cancellation of tax declaration, and damages before Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court of Loay, Bohol. The trial court ruled in favor of Francisca. It declared her the lawful owner of the portion she occupies, approximately 3,000 square meters, and ordered that portion subdivided from the whole, with costs borne equally. The trial court held that the heirs and their predecessors failed to timely assert their claim and were barred by laches. The heirs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed and set aside the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeals declared the heirs the rightful owners, ordered the cancellation of Francisca's tax declaration, and directed Francisca either to surrender possession after payment of proper indemnity, to pay the price of the portion she occupies, or to pay reasonable rentals, at the heirs' option. It held that a tax declaration cannot prevail over an original certificate of title and that the heirs were not barred by laches. Francisca's motion for reconsideration was denied, so she elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

Benigna Sumampong-Sarate was the registered owner of a 17,094-square-meter parcel of land in Lower Bonbon, Loboc, Bohol, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 27731. She possessed the property, exercised acts of ownership, and paid the real property taxes until her death in 1976. She was succeeded by her seven children, all of whom have since passed away and were survived by their own children, among them Artemio and Tomas.

Francisca occupied a 3,000-square-meter portion of the property. She claimed that in 1966 she purchased the land from Ruperto Dante through a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale, that she possessed it as owner since then, and that she built a house on it as early as 1973. The heirs allegedly did nothing to oppose her occupation because they were unaware of the exact boundaries of what they inherited.

In August 2012, Tomas caused the lot to be resurveyed and discovered that Francisca occupied a substantial portion of it. He verbally demanded that she vacate, but the demand went unheeded. The heirs then engaged a geodetic engineer, confirmed the encroachment, made a formal demand, sought the intervention of the barangay authorities, and eventually filed the complaint in January 2013.

Issues

• Whether or not, as between Francisca and the heirs of Benigna, the heirs hold the better right of possession over the disputed property.
• Whether or not the heirs of Benigna are barred by laches from recovering the property.

Applicable Provisions

Section 44 of Act No. 496, the Land Registration Act, provides:

No title to registered land in derogation of that of a registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.

This is the statutory anchor of the ruling: because title to registered land cannot be acquired by adverse possession, an action by the registered owner or the owner's heirs to recover such land does not prescribe.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the heirs of Benigna hold the better right of possession. A certificate of title is evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title in favor of the person named in it, and a person holding a Torrens title over land is entitled to its possession. As against the registered owner and the holder of an unregistered deed of sale, it is the registered owner who has the better right to possess. The Court quoted its earlier ruling with approval:

Ultimately, in this jurisdiction, a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein and that a person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to the possession thereof. Thus, as against the registered owner and the holder of an unregistered deed of sale, it is the former who has a better right to possess.

The heirs presented Original Certificate of Title No. 27731 in the name of their predecessor-in-interest, bolstered by the testimony of the geodetic engineer who surveyed the property and confirmed Francisca's encroachment. Francisca's deed of sale and tax receipts, however numerous, cannot prevail over a certificate of title.

On the second issue, the Court held that laches does not bar the heirs. An action to recover registered land under the Torrens System may not generally be barred by laches, and laches cannot be set up to resist the enforcement of an imprescriptible legal right. Laches rests on equity and may not prevail against a specific provision of law, because equity is applied in the absence of, and not against, statutory law. The Court also found that the heirs acted diligently: upon discovering the tax declaration in Francisca's name, they promptly hired a geodetic engineer, made a formal demand, sought barangay intervention, and then filed suit. The brief interval between discovery and filing negated any unreasonable delay.

Doctrine

A Torrens certificate of title is evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title in favor of the registered owner, who is entitled to possession of the land. As against the registered owner, the holder of an unregistered deed of sale and a tax declaration has an inferior right. Under Section 44 of Act No. 496, no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner may be acquired by prescription or adverse possession; hence an action to recover registered land does not prescribe, and this imprescriptibility extends to the registered owner's heirs. Laches, being a principle of equity, cannot defeat an imprescriptible legal right and generally does not bar an action to recover registered land, even where the registered owner knew of the occupant's possession and regardless of the length of that occupation.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied Francisca's petition and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, upholding the heirs of Benigna as the rightful owners entitled to possession of the registered land.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a certificate of title prevails over an unregistered deed of sale and a tax declaration, and laches cannot defeat the imprescriptible right of a registered owner to recover registered land. Examiners use this case to test the hierarchy between a Torrens title and a tax declaration, and to test whether laches can bar recovery of registered property.