FELICIANO GAITERO G.R. No. 181812
and NELIA GAITERO,
Petitioners, Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - NACHURA,
BRION,*
PERALTA, and
ABAD, JJ.
GENEROSO ALMERIA and
TERESITA ALMERIA, Promulgated:
Respondents.
June 8, 2011
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
Will laches, a rule of equity, benefit
one who himself slept on his supposed right?
The Facts and the Case
Following a cadastral survey in Barangay Ysulat, Tobias Fornier,
Antique, a land registration court issued an original certificate of title[1] to
Rosario O. Tomagan (Tomagan) covering a 10,741 square-meter land, designated as
Lot 9960.[2] Subsequently in 1993, Tomagan subdivided the lot
awarded to her into four: Lot 9960-A[3]
covering 3,479 sq m; Lot 9960-B covering 1,305 sq m; Lot 9960-C[4]
covering 3,073 sq m; and
Lot 9960-A that went to Gaitero adjoined
Lot 9964 which belonged to respondent spouses Generoso and Teresita Almeria (the
Almerias) and was covered by OCT P-14556.
In June 2000, the Almerias commissioned a relocation survey of their lot
and were astonished to find that Gaitero, who owned adjoining
On August 9, 2000, apparently to
settle the dispute, the Almerias waived their rights over a 158 sq m portion of
the disputed area in Gaiteros favor but maintained their claim over the remaining
579 sq m. Subsequently, however, Gaitero
filed an affidavit of adverse claim on the Almerias title over the remaining
579 sq m.[6]
When barangay conciliation proceedings failed to settle the differences
between the two neighbors, Gaitero filed an action for recovery of possession
against the Almerias[7]
before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Tobias
Fornier-Anini-Y-Hamtic. Gaitero prayed
for the return of the possession of the remaining 579 sq m, moral damages of P100,000.00,
exemplary damages of P25,000.00, attorneys fees of P15,000.00,
and litigation expenses of P10,000.00.
Gaitero claimed that he was the registered owner of Lot 9960-A, which was
covered by TCT T-2544 and had an assessed value of P11,050.00; that he
inherited the same from his mother, Maria Obay, who in turn inherited it from
her father, Bonifacio Obay; that before the cadastral survey, Lot 9960-A was
erroneously lumped with Lot 9960 in Tomagans name; that, acknowledging the
mistake, Tomagan subdivided Lot 9960 into four lots and waived her rights over
Lots 9960-A and 9960-C in Gaiteros favor; that the Almerias claimed a portion
of Lot 9960-A by virtue of a relocation survey and fenced it close to Gaiteros
house, obstructing the latters passageway; and that while the Almerias
returned 158 sq m of the disputed portion, they refused to return to him the
remaining 579 sq m.
Answering the complaint and instituting a counterclaim, the Almerias
alleged that they bought Lot 9964[8] in
1985 by virtue of an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate and Sale; that it was Gaitero
who unlawfully encroached on the 737 sq m portion of Lot 9964; and that, while
they had waived a portion of the disputed area, Gaiteros incessant claim to
the remaining 579 sq m prompted them to cancel their previous waiver of the 158
sq m.[9] The Almerias prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint and the award of damages in their favor.
In his reply, Gaitero claimed that the cadastral survey was erroneous in
that it included a 737 sq m portion of Lot 9960-A into
After trial, on December 9, 2002 the MCTC rendered a decision, dismissing
the complaint and ordering Gaitero to pay the Almerias P20,000.00 in
moral damages and P20,000.00 in attorneys fees. The MCTC held that the Almerias were entitled
to the possession of the disputed area considering that it is included in the
technical description of their registered title. Further, the MCTC held that Gaitero
acknowledged the true boundaries of 9960-A when
On appeal,[10] the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) reversed the decision of the MCTC.[11] The RTC held that, while the Almerias were
the rightful owners of the disputed area, laches
prevented them from asserting their right over the same since it took them 15
years before they did so. The RTC also
ordered the Almerias to pay Gaitero moral damages of P50,000.00, attorneys
fees of P15,000.00 and litigation expenses of P30,000.00.
On review,[12] the Court of Appeals (CA)
rendered judgment on May 21, 2007, reversing the decision of the RTC and
reinstating that of the MCTC. The CA held
that the Almerias owned the disputed area since, between a registered title and
a verbal claim of ownership, the former must prevail. The CA did not consider the Almerias in laches
since no one had lodge a claim of ownership against their title to the disputed
property. On motion for reconsideration,
the CA deleted the award of moral damages, litigation expenses, and attorneys
fees in its resolution of February 11, 2008.
The Issue Presented
The sole issue presented to the Court
is whether or not the CA erred in holding that the Almerias are entitled to the
possession of the disputed area as against Gaitero.
The Courts Ruling
Possession is an essential attribute
of ownership. Necessarily, whoever owns
the property has the right to possess it.[13] Here, between the Almerias registered title of
ownership and Gaiteros verbal claim to the same, the formers title is far superior.
As the MCTC, the RTC, and the CA found,
the disputed area forms part of the Almerias registered title. Upon examination, this fact is also confirmed
by the subdivision plan which partitioned Tomagans original
The Court cannot consider Gaiteros
claim of ownership of the disputed area, based on his alleged continuous
possession of the same, without running afoul of the rule that bars collateral
attacks of registered titles.[15] Gaiteros action before the MCTC is one for
recovery of possession of the disputed area.
An adjudication of his claim of ownership over the same would be out of
place in such kind of action. A
registered title cannot be impugned, altered, changed, modified, enlarged, or
diminished, except in a direct proceeding permitted by law. Otherwise, reliance on registered titles would
be lost.[16] Gaiteros action is prohibited by law and
should be dismissed.
Gaiteros theory
of laches cannot vest on him the ownership of the disputed area. To begin with, laches is a consideration in
equity[17]
and therefore, anyone who invokes it must come to court with clean hands, for he who has done inequity shall not
have equity.[18] Here, Gaiteros claim of laches against the Almerias
can be hurled against him. When the lot
that the Almerias acquired (
Worse, when Gaitero saw the subdivision plan covering Tomagans original
Lot 9960 in 1993, it showed that the disputed area fell outside the boundaries
of Lot 9960-A which he claimed. Still,
Gaitero did nothing to correct the alleged mistake. He is by his inaction clearly estopped from
claiming ownership of the disputed area.
He cannot avail himself of the law of equity.
WHEREFORE,
the Court DISMISSES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision and resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 80285 dated May 21, 2007 and February 11,
2008, respectively.
SO
ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated as additional member in lieu
of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, per raffle dated June 8, 2011.
[1] OCT P-14601.
[2] Rollo, pp. 171-172.
[3] Eventually covered by TCT T-2544.
[4] Eventually covered by TCT T-2545.
[5] Rollo, p. 173.
[6]
[7] Docketed as Civil Case 243-TF.
[8] Covered by OCT P-14556 under the name of Leon Asenjo.
[9] Rollo, p. 37.
[10] Docketed as Civil Case 3364.
[11] Decision dated August 1, 2003.
[12] Docketed as CA-G.R. SP 80285.
[13] Spouses Bustos v. Court of Appeals, 403 Phil. 21, 30 (2001).
[14] Section 32, Property Registration Decree (Presidential Decree 1529).
[15] Section 48, id.
[16] Ugale v. Gorospe, G.R. No.149516,
September 11, 2006, 501 SCRA 376, 385.
[17] GF Equity, Inc. v. Valenzona, 501 Phil. 153, 166 (2005).
[18] De Castro v. Utility Savings, G.R. No. 166445, February 9, 2005.