Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
Chester Cabalza recommends visitors to please read the original and full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
G.R. No. 129977. February 1, 2001
JOSELITO VILLEGAS and DOMINGA VILLEGAS, Petitioners,
v.
COURT OF APPEALS and FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, Respondents.
Facts:
Ciciarco D. Andres and Henson Caigas had four (4) hectares of land registered under their names. They sold the land to Fortune Tobacco Corporation and both executed a joint affidavit declaring that they had no tenants on said lot. Later, they executed a Deed of Reconveyance of the same lot in favor of Filomena Domingo, the mother of Joselito Villegas, defendant in the case.
On December 4, 1976, the Office of the Register of Deeds of Isabela was burned together with all titles in the office. Thirteen days after, the original of TCT No. T-91864 was administratively reconstituted by the Register of Deeds. On April 10, 1991, the trial court upon a petition filed by Fortune ordered the reconstitution of the original of TCT No. T-68737.
After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its assailed decision in favor of Fortune Tobacco, declaring it to be entitled to the property. Petitioners thus appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial courts decision, with a modification on the award of damages and attorneys fees.
Issues:
a) Who among of the parties is entitled to the property based from the validity of their respective titles?
b) Has laches set in against private respondent Fortune Tobacco Corporation?
Held:
It is petitioners contention that Fortune was a buyer in bad faith. They allege that Fortune should have investigated if the property had any occupants. If it had done so, it would have found petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest in possession thereof. Petitioners also allege that Andres and Caigas were not the owners of the property at the time it was sold to Fortune. Throughout their pleadings, petitioners claim that Fortunes title is fake and spurious, having proceeded from its so-called reconstitution. Lastly, petitioners invoke the doctrine of laches against Fortunes bid to recover the property.
Invoking the prior title rule, Fortune declares that it is the lawful owner of the property, as the certificate of title in its name was issued before issuance of another title to petitioners predecessor-in-interest, Filomena Domingo.
Fortune claims that petitioners title is spurious. It also alleges that petitioners admitted the validity of Fortunes title, and that petitioners continuous possession of the property cannot defeat said title. Fortune also asserts that it bought the property in good faith.
It was held however, that the Court is clothed with ample authority to review matters, even if they are not assigned as errors in the appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case. In the case at bar, Fortunes title was judicially reconstituted by virtue of an order dated April 10, 1991, issued by the Regional Trial Court in Cauayan, Isabela.
Section 110 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides:
SEC. 110. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens title. Original copies of certificates of title lost or destroyed in the offices of Register of Deeds as well as liens and encumbrances affecting the lands covered by such titles shall be reconstituted judicially in accordance with the procedure described in Republic Act No. 26 insofar as not inconsistent with this Decree.
The elements of laches are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation that led to the complaint and for which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainants rights, having had knowledge or notice of the defendants conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held barred.
In the case at bar, there is no question on the presence of the first element. The object of Fortunes complaint before the trial court was to recover possession of the property in question, which is presently in the hands of petitioners. The second element of delay is also present in this case. Fortunes suit for recovery of possession and damages was instituted only on May 29, 1991, fifteen years after the registration of Filomena Domingos title to the property in 1976. The third element of laches also present in this case. There is nothing in the record which shows that petitioners had any inkling of Fortunes intent to possess the subject property. As to the fourth element of laches, it goes without saying that petitioners will be prejudiced if Fortunes complaint is accorded relief, or not held barred, as then petitioners would be deprived of the property on which their households stand.
The Decision is granted.
No comments:
Post a Comment