FE DEMONTAÑO, EDGAR DEMONTAÑO (deceased), JUANILLO
DEMONTAÑO, JR., and EMILY DEMONTAÑO petitioner, vs. ERLINDA
REYNALDO DARIAGAN, WILSON REYNALDO (deceased), & NORMA
REYNALDO BELVIS, respondents.
GR 232785
March 4, 2020
Peralta
Facts:
• Respondent Erlina Dariagan, Norma Belvis and the deceased Wilson
Reynaldo (the Reynaldos) are the registered owners of Lot 3523 with an
area of 112,684 square meters, located in Panitan Capiz, covered by TCT
T-12218.
o Declared for taxation purposes under the Reynaldos’ names.
o Originally, the said lot was covered by TCT-4666 under their
grandparents’ name, Roman and Loreta Dumol (sps. Dumol)
• They Reynaldos discovered that Juanillo Demontaño, Petitioner Fe’s
deceased husband, and father of the petitioners – deceased Edgar
Demontaño and Emily Demontaño (the Demontaños), had an approx.. 3,700
square meters portion of the Reynaldos’ land declared uynder Juanillo’s for
taxation purposes.
o Extra-judicial efforts for the resolutory of the controversy were
tried to no avail.
• The Reynaldos filed with the MTC a complaint a quo for recovery of
possession against the Demontaños.
o Demontaños contended that the cases is barred by prescription
and laches as Juanillo and his family have been in possession of
the said portion of Lot 3523 since 1961.
o The further averred that the said portion had previously been
subject to a civil case for recovery of possession and ownership,
the said case was dismissed for lack of interest on May 13, 1968.
§ Since then, their possession had been undisturbed until
the filing of this complaint a quo.
• MTC ruled in favor of the Reynaldos, having established preponderance of
evidence and ordering the Demontaños, their heirs, successors and assigns
and any other person acting in their behalf.
o Vacate and deliver the actual possession of the subject 3,716
square meters of lot 3523.
o Pay jointly and solidarily
§ 300/month as compensation for occupation from the
filing until possession is turned over
§ 20K for attorney’s fees
§ 10K for litigation expenses
§ 5K for moral damages
§ Cost of suit
• Demontaños appealed to the RTC
• RTC ruled in favor of the Demontaños relying on latter’s possession of the
subject portion since 1961.
o RTC found that the subject portion is supported by the fact of
having declared the subject portion under Juanillo’s name for
taxation purposes
o They ruled that although tax declarations are not conclusive proof
they are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner.
o RTC concluded that the Reynaldos are barred from recovering the
portion claimed by the Demontaños.
• The Reynaldos sought refuge from the CA on appeal, assailing the reversal
of the RTC Decision.
• CA granted the appeal and held that the Reynaldos are the registered owner
of Lot 3523.
o Citing Sec 47 of PD 1529 which states that “no title to registered
lang in derogation of the tile of the registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
o Furthermore, it held that laches cannot set in against the
Reynaldos as registered owners of the subject lot, without any
color of title, cannot ripen into ownership.
o To allow the Demontaños to continue possession without just title
would open to unbridled encroachment of real properties in
derogation of the registered owners’ rights.
• Hence, this petition. The Demontaños contending that:
o CA erred in stating that the equitable defense of laches does not
lie against a property registered under the Torrens system and is
unavailing under the facts obtaining in this case.
o Arguing that laches is a valid defense against an action for
recovery of possession even if the property subject thereof is
registered under the Torrens System.
o They insist that laches had already set in, to support their claim
are:
§ Their long term possession
§ Tax declaration under Juanillo’s name over the subject
portion of the lot; and
§ Dismissal of the 1968 case filed by the Reynaldos’
predecessor-in-interest, sps Dumol, against Juanillo.
Issue:
WON the CA erred in ruling the laches cannot be applied
Held: possession thereof in the concept of an owner for a significant
• No period of time.
• The Court agrees with the CA, that the contention of the Demontaños cannot o Juanillo and his successors-in-interest could have secured their
be upheld. claim under the law by filing an action to question the Reynaldos'
• It is an undisputed fact that the Reynaldos have been the registered owners title thereto and have the same registered under their names in
of Lot 3523 evidenced by the CT T-12218. It was likewise established that case of a favorable decision.
the entire lot is declared for taxation purposes under the Reynaldos’ names. • The CA did not err in ruling for the imprescriptibly and indefeasibility of
o While the Demontaños is merely grounded upon a tax declaration the Reynaldos' title over the Demontaños possession without colorable
under Jualliano’s name and their long-term possession. authority or title. As aptly held by the CA, the purpose of adopting a Torrens
• It was correctly observed by the CA that the Demontaños had not shown system in our jurisdiction is to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to
how they acquired the subject portion of the lot. protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and
o They failed to show color or any valid claim or right in occupying recognized.
the subject portion of the Reynaldo’s registered property. • Verily, once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the
o Such occupation, no matter how long, cannot ripen into necessity of waiting in the portals of the court sitting in the mirador de su
ownership and defeat the title of the registered owners. casa to avoid the possibility of losing his land.
• The CA correctly ruled that while it is true that a registered owner may lose • The certificate of title cannot be defeated by laches, prescription or adverse,
his right to recover the possession of his registered property by reason of open and, notorious possession, no matter how significant of a time such
laches, this principle cannot apply in this case. possession may be.
o General rule: action to recover possession of a registered land • Section 47 of P.D. No. 1529 states that, “No title to registered land in
covered by the Torrens system may not be barred by laches. derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by
Neither can laches be set up to resist the enforcement of an prescription or adverse possession."
imprescriptible right, such as the owner’s right to recover
possession of his property from any person illegally occupying Decision:
his land. Petition is denied
• The Demontaños relied on the prior cases which upheld the defense of CA Decision is affirmed with Modification, imposed 6% legal interest per annum on
lachers to defeat the title of the register owner are not applicable in this case. the monetary awards from finality of the Resolution until full payment thereof.
o In the cases that was relied upon by the Demontaños, the parties
in possession of the respective properties under litigation had title
over the properties or had valid claims of authority to possess the
same as they were able to show documents showing that
ownership over the said properties were transferred to them.
• It bears stressing that in the case at bar, the Demontaños failed to allege,
much less prove, that the subject portion was conveyed to them by the
registered owners or awarded them by virtue of a valid court judgement.
• Although the tax declaration is a good indicium of a claim of ownership iot
does not prove ownership if not supported by other competent and effective
proofs.
• Hence, having no title or document to overcome the Reynaldos’ ownership
over the entire lot, the Demontaños are intruders who, under the law, have
no possessory rights over the land intruded upon.
o If at all, it is Juanillo and all those who claim interests under him
who may be considered guilty of laches as they failed to complete
their claimed title over the subject portion despite alleged