Velez v. Demetrio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Felix Radaza and Estefania Abrogar owned a ten-hectare agricultural land. Upon their death, ownership passed by intestate succession to their children and grandchildren. The land was registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 76781 in the names of several co-owners. Respondents, heirs of Ramona Radaza-Demetrio and Jose Radaza, Sr., filed a complaint for Partition of Real Estate with Damages against petitioners, heirs of Mariano Velez, Sr. Respondents alleged that in 1947, they discovered the property was claimed and fenced by Mariano Velez, Sr., and they were denied entry. They filed the complaint after several years due to financial reasons and prior attempts to recover ownership extra-legally. Procedural History: The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants (petitioners herein), declaring them absolute owners and ordering the dismissal of the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court's decision, directing the partition of the property, granting 2/5 to the plaintiffs-appellants (respondents herein) and 3/5 to the defendants-appellees (petitioners herein). The motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, raising issues of whether the shares of Ramona Radaza and Jose Radaza were sold to Mariano Velez, Sr., and whether respondents are guilty of laches.
Issue(s)
Whether the shares of Ramona Radaza and Jose Radaza, Sr. were sold to Mariano Velez, Sr. Whether respondents are guilty of laches.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 22, 1996 in CA-G.R. CV No. 30381 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the shares of Ramona Radaza and Jose Radaza, Sr. were sold to Mariano Velez, Sr.: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the alleged sales were not sufficiently proven. The Court found that the testimonies offered by petitioners to establish the alleged transactions were hearsay. Specifically, the testimony of Francisco Radaza regarding the sale of Ramona's share to his father, Filomeno, was deemed improbable given Francisco's own testimony about his whereabouts. Regarding the shares of Jose Radaza, Sr.'s children, the Court noted the lack of evidence that Ciriaca Bacarro Radaza was authorized to sell their shares, and Francisco Radaza's statement was considered hearsay as he was a stranger to the alleged sale. The testimony of Isabelo Tabian was also considered hearsay. Therefore, the alleged sales were not proven with sufficient evidence. On whether respondents are guilty of laches: The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that laches could not have set in. The Court clarified that laches is an equitable doctrine and its application is controlled by equitable considerations, and courts will not be bound by it if manifest wrong or injustice would result. The Court of Appeals held that the specific act of repudiation of co-ownership occurred only on March 27, 1974, when petitioners registered an affidavit of adverse claim, and prescription began to run only from that date. Since the case was filed on April 14, 1975, prescription could not be counted in favor of petitioners for the remaining 2/5 share. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that prescription and laches cannot apply to registered land covered by the Torrens system, as provided by the Property Registration Decree. Registered owners can rest secure without the necessity of constantly waiting to avoid losing their land.
Main Doctrine
Prescription and laches cannot apply to registered land covered by the Torrens system, as registered owners can rest secure without the necessity of constantly guarding against the loss of their land.