Tambot v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, heirs of Tarcela de Guzman, sought to recover a 357 sq. m. portion of Lot No. 2, which was registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 46641 in their mother's name. This disputed property was sold by Rufino Tambot, one of Tarcela's children, to Cipriano Calongcagon on May 26, 1938. The deed of sale was also signed by petitioners Laureana, Isidora, and Aurelia Tambot, signifying their conformity. Calongcagon subsequently sold the property to Maria Estaris, whose heirs, in turn, sold it to the private respondents (DEFENDANTS) on July 27, 1955. The private respondents declared the property as their own, paid taxes, and planted fruit trees. Petitioners filed suit on May 27, 1974, to recover the disputed property. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan annulled the deed of sale, declared petitioners as absolute owners of the disputed portion, and ordered the defendants to vacate. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, declaring the defendants as lawful owners and ordering the issuance of a new title in their names. The Petition: Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that they lost their right to recover by laches and that respondents acquired title by acquisitive prescription. They contended that prescription was not alleged in the answer and that registered land cannot be acquired by prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether the defense of prescription was properly raised in the private respondents' answer. Whether the petitioners lost their right to recover the disputed property through laches. Whether the private respondents acquired title to the disputed property by acquisitive prescription.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the defense of prescription was properly raised: The records show that the defense of laches and/or prescription was indeed pleaded in the private respondents' answer to the complaint. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the answer explicitly stated that the defendants had been in actual and peaceful possession for more than eighteen (18) years and that the cause of action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. Furthermore, the trial court itself noted in its statement of the case that the defendants alleged in their answer and memorandum that the right to claim had long prescribed due to their possession since July 27, 1955. Therefore, the defense was properly raised and considered by the lower courts. On the issue of whether the petitioners lost their right to recover through laches: The Court found that the petitioners are chargeable with laches. They, along with their brother Rufino, were aware of the sale of the disputed property on May 26, 1938. Rufino testified that Lot No. 2 belonged to their aunt Margarita, not their mother Tarcela, and that only Lot No. 1 was partitioned among Tarcela's heirs. The petitioners Laureana, Isidora, and Aurelia even signed their conformity to the deed of sale executed by Rufino. Despite knowing that the private respondents and their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the disputed property for 36 years, paying taxes, and cultivating it, the petitioners waited until May 27, 1974, to file their suit. This prolonged inaction and neglect, coupled with the respondents' continuous, open, and adverse possession under claim of title, converted their claim into a stale demand. On the issue of whether the private respondents acquired title by acquisitive prescription: While registered land under the Torrens system generally cannot be acquired by prescription, the Court clarified that the heirs of the registered owner may lose their right to recover possession through laches. In this case, the private respondents and their predecessors-in-interest possessed the disputed property from May 26, 1938, to May 26, 1974, a period of 36 years. This possession was under a colorable title, as Rufino executed the deed of sale alleging ownership, and it was conformed to by the petitioners. The possession was also open, continuous, and adverse. The Court cited several cases, including Wright, Jr. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., Heirs of Batiog Lacamen vs. Heirs of Laruan, and Mejia de Lucas vs. Gamponia, to support the principle that long inaction and neglect by the original owner or their heirs can bar their right to recover, effectively converting their claim into a stale demand, even if the adverse possessor may not have acquired title by prescription in the strict sense.
Main Doctrine
The heirs of a registered owner may lose their right to recover possession of registered property through laches, even if the property itself cannot be acquired by prescription, especially when the possession by the adverse party is under a colorable title and has been open, continuous, and adverse for a significant period.