Heirs of Ybañez v. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 210983. February 15, 2022.]

HEIRS OF PETRONA YBAÑEZ, AURELIO YBAÑEZ, CATALINO YBAÑEZ, MARCIANA Y. GODINEZ, HEIRS OF AURELIO YBAÑEZ: ALFREDO YBAÑEZ, CRESENCIO YBAÑEZ, FELISA Y. YMBONG, EMMA Y. BAGUIO, CARMELITA Y. RENEJANE, HEIRS OF GREGORIA YBAÑEZ: JUAN YBAÑEZ, RUFINO YBAÑEZ, IGNACIO YBAÑEZ, ANGEL YBAÑEZ, DIOSDADO YBAÑEZ, HEIRS OF GREGORIO YBAÑEZ: PEDRO YBAÑEZ, DOMINGO YBAÑEZ, HEIRS OF QUIRINO YBAÑEZ: HIGENIO YBAÑEZ, ROMEO YBAÑEZ, SABAS YBAÑEZ, HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO YBAÑEZ: SOFRONIO YBAÑEZ, CERILO YBAÑEZ, ANTERO YBAÑEZ, HEIRS OF ROMANA YBAÑEZ: ALFREDO QUILANTANG, HEIRS OF MARCELO YBANEZ: ANACLETO YBAÑEZ, MARCELO YBAÑEZ, JR., HILARIO YBAÑEZ AND FELIPE YBAÑEZ, petitioners, vs.MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MICAA), respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 15, 2022which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 210983 (Heirs of Petrona Ybañez, Aurelio Ybañez, Catalino Ybañez, Marciana Y. Godinez, Heirs of Aurelio Ybañez: Alfredo Ybañez, Cresencio Ybañez, Felisa Y. Ymbong, Emma Y. Baguio, Carmelita Y. Renejane, Heirs of Gregoria Ybañez: Juan Ybañez, Rufino Ybañez, Ignacio Ybañez, Angel Ybañez, Diosdado Ybañez, Heirs of Gregorio Ybañez: Pedro Ybañez, Domingo Ybañez, Heirs of Quirino Ybañez: Higenio Ybañez, Romeo Ybañez, Sabas Ybañez, Heirs of Estanislao Ybañez: Sofronio Ybañez, Cerilo Ybañez, Antero Ybañez, Heirs of Romana Ybañez: Alfredo Quilantang, Heirs of Marcelo Ybañez: Anacleto Ybañez, Marcelo Ybañez, Jr., Hilario Ybañez and Felipe Ybañez v. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA)). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Decision 2 dated March 15, 2013 and the Resolution 3 dated December 9, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 03241. The CA reversed the June 19, 2009 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) involving a suit for "Ownership, Nullity of Deed, Damages and Attorney's Fees," in Civil Case No. 5353-L and dismissed the complaint of the heirs of Petrona, Aurelio, Gregoria, Gregorio, Quirino, Estanislao, Romana, and Marcelo (heirs of Petrona, et al.) for their failure to prove their title over Lot No. 2227. DHIcET

The Antecedents

As culled from the decision of the CA, and the pleadings of the parties, this Court finds the following factual and procedural antecedents sufficiently established:

The subject property is a 21,554-square meter lot located at Basak, Lapu-Lapu City, known as Lot No. 2227 of the Cadastral Survey of Opon, Province of Cebu. 5

On October 19, 1999, the heirs of Petrona, et al., represented by Alfredo and Anacleto, filed a petition for reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) before the RTC Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City. They alleged that their predecessors-in-interest were the registered owners and possessors of Lot No. 2227, as evidenced by the Cadastral Decision, Cad. Case No. 19, Record No. 1003, Opon Cadastre, dated November 29, 1929, and the Municipal Index Decree. Upon verification with the Register of Deeds, the heirs of Petrona, et al., discovered that the OCT for Lot No. 2227 had been lost or destroyed during World War II. Since the owners' duplicate copy of the OCT was also missing, the heirs of Petrona, et al., sought for the reconstitution of the said title. 6

In its motion, the Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) opposed the petition for reconstitution and questioned the heirs of Petrona, et al.'s right to institute the petition. According to the MCIAA, it is the real owner of Lot No. 2227 by virtue of the deed of sale executed by Spouses Sergio Ybañez (Sergio) and Teresa Canteveros in the year 1957. Subsequently, the RTC noted MCIAA's opposition and suspended the proceedings in the reconstitution case. 7

Thus, on January 3, 2002, the heirs of Petrona, et al., filed a complaint for "Ownership, Nullity of Deed, Damages and Attorney's Fees" against MCIAA. The complaint reiterated the allegations in the petition for reconstitution. According to the heirs of Petrona, et al., Decree No. 459265 covering Lot No. 2227 was issued to their predecessors in interest. The heirs of Petrona, et al., argued that they only discovered the existence of Lot No. 2227's deed of sale upon filing of MCIAA's opposition to their petition for reconstitution. They averred that Sergio is not an heir of the decreed owners and has no right and interest over Lot No. 2227. Thus, the deed of sale that Sergio executed in favor of MCIAA was null and void. The heirs of Petrona, et al., also interposed that Sergio was the son of Mauricio Ybañez, the owner of Lot No. 2226 which is the lot adjoining Lot No. 2227. According to them, there is a possibility that it was Lot No. 2226 and not Lot No. 2227, that was sold to MCIAA. To support this claim, the heirs of Petrona, et al., stated that only Lot No. 2226 was utilized by MCIAA and within its perimeter fence. Lot No. 2227, on the other hand is outside the said fence and was never used by MCIAA until recently when it leased a portion of Lot No. 2227 to another corporation. 8

Rufino, Alfredo and Anacleto testified for the heirs of Petrona, et al., and reiterated the allegations in the petition for reconstitution. They stated that their grandparents were the declared owners of Lot No. 2227 by virtue of the decision in the cadastral case. When their grandparents died, the ownership over Lot No. 2227 was transferred to their parents through succession. They averred that their predecessors-in-interest occupied and cultivated Lot No. 2227 and testified that Alfredo's parents planted mansanitas on a portion of it. At present, Rufino, Alfredo and Anacleto's siblings and cousins are occupants and possessors of Lot No. 2227, although they did not introduce any improvements thereon. As regards their own possession of the land, Rufino alleged that he had been born and raised in Lot No. 2227 but transferred his residence when he got married in the year 1992. Alfredo on the other hand, tacked the possession of Lot No. 2227 to his father, who used to live in Lot No. 2227 when he was still single. Anacleto, on his part, testified that although he and his cousins live in different places, they used to meet in Lot No. 2227 because they have a shanty in the said lot. Rufino, Alfredo and Anacleto admitted that while they are not paying Lot No. 2227's real property taxes, their grandparents used to pay the same and ceased paying only in the year 1958. 9

Rufino, Alfredo and Anacleto argued that Sergio had no authority to sell Lot No. 2227 because Sergio's father is not among the previous owners of Lot No. 2227. According to Rufino, while he and Sergio were neighbors, the latter did not mention to him the sale of Lot No. 2227 in favor of the government. The witnesses for the petitioners argued that MCIAA never possessed Lot No. 2227. However, during cross-examination, Alfredo stated that after the year 1955, Lot No. 2227 was occupied by Mactan Air Base. 10

The heirs of Petrona, et al., formally offered the following documentary evidence: (1) an alleged copy of the cadastral decision certified by Geodetic Engineer Benito F. Bunagan (Bunagan); (2) a machine copy of the index decree of Lot No. 2227 with Decree No. 459265; (3) the certification from the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 27 attesting that Lot No. 2227 has not been involved in any cadastral case or litigation; (4) the survey plan of the land; and (5) the Register of Deeds' certification that the OCT of the land was lost during the war. 11

On the other hand, MCIAA insisted that it owns Lot No. 2227 and averred in its Answer, the affirmative defenses of buyer in good faith, acquisitive prescription, and laches. It alleged that on September 26, 1957, Sergio sold the entire Lot No. 2227 to the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA). From then on, CAA had material, continuous, open and adverse possession in the concept of an owner over Lot No. 2227. Subsequently, such possession was transferred from MCIAA to the Bureau of Air and Transportation (BAT), by virtue of Republic Act No. 6958. 12

To prove ownership, MCIAA offered in evidence the tax declarations covering Lot No. 2227 from the time it was declared in Sergio's name up to its declaration in MCIAA's name. 13 MCIAA presented the following witnesses: Michael Bacarisas (Michael) and Joel Luis T. Cabilla (Joel).

Michael, the legal assistant of MCIAA since August 19, 1996, stated before the RTC that his duties include research on cases filed against MCIAA. According to him, he is familiar with Lot No. 2227 because he had conducted research on it and had kept several documents. These said documents are: (1) the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Sergio in favor of MCIAA sometime in 1957; (2) a voucher attesting that the government paid the purchase price of Lot No. 2227; and (3) the technical description of Lot No. 2227 from the Office of the Lapu-Lapu City Assessor. However, he admitted that he was not able to find Sergio's title over Lot No. 2227. Also, based on Michael's research, Sergio was not the original owner of the subject land because Sergio's name was not included in the Index of Decree. Michael revealed that he neither conducted research on Sergio's whereabouts nor his biological relationship with the decreed owners. As regards MCIAA's possession of Lot No. 2227, Michael testified that Mactan Air Base previously utilized the said lot. 14

Joel, the geodetic engineer at MCIAA's civil works division, corroborated Michael's testimony on Mactan Air Base's possession of Lot No. 2227. In addition, he stated that the premises were fenced because it was secured by the military. Based on the relocation survey he conducted in year 1994, Lot No. 2227 is located near the Mactan Export Processing Zone II (MEPZ II) and is adjacent to Lot No. 2226. However, Joel also admitted that even if Aboitiz Land started developing MEPZ II in 1994, a large portion of Lot No. 2227 adjacent to its building remains unoccupied, up to the present. 15 IDaEHC

MCIAA also offered as evidence, the deed of sale of Lot No. 2227 as decreed in Cadastral Case No. 15 under Decree No. 459265, and the tax declarations for Lot No. 2227 in Sergio's name, and subsequently in the names of transferees including CAA and MCIAA. 16

On June 19, 2009, the RTC ruled in favor of the heirs of Petrona, et al. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs Ybañez and against defendant MCIAA, declaring:

1. The Deed of Sale executed by Sergio Ybañez in favor of the Civil Aeronautics administration as null and void;

2. The plaintiffs as owners of Lot [No.] 2227 by way of succession;

3. The defendant to reconvey the subject land in favor of the plaintiffs.

No pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED.17

The RTC disregarded MCIAA's defense of acquisitive prescription and laches on the ground that it failed to prove open and adverse possession of Lot No. 2227. The RTC found that since Sergio, the seller in the purported sale of Lot No. 2227, was neither included in the list of decreed owners in the municipal index of decree nor an heir of the decreed owners, he cannot be an owner of Lot No. 2227. The RTC disregarded the tax declaration in CAA and MCIAA's names because these tax declarations were not coupled with proof of actual possession. For these reasons, the RTC ruled that the sale of Lot No. 2227 by CAA to Sergio was void.

The MCIAA, through the OSG filed an appeal before the CA. On March 15, 2013, the CA reversed the ruling of the RTC. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision, provides:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The July 19, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Lapu-Lapu City in Civil Case No. 5653-L is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint of the heirs of Petrona, et al., is dismissed for failure to prove their title over Lot 2227.

SO ORDERED.18

The CA found that the alleged copy of the cadastral decision and the machine copy of the index of decree are not prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein and are not conclusive proof of title. 19 These public records were not evidenced by an official publication or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record as required by Section 24, 20 Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. The CA ruled that since records are bereft of evidence to prove the existence of a certificate of title, the heirs of Petrona, et al., cannot benefit on the presumption of ownership accorded to the registered lot. 21 DTCSHA

The CA also ruled that the heirs of Petrona, et al., failed to substantiate their claim of ownership. While the heirs of Petrona, et al., alleged that their predecessors-in-interest exercised acts of ownership over Lot No. 2227, their witnesses failed to establish that their predecessors-in-interest exercised acts of ownership over Lot No. 2227, and that they remained in the property after the war. 22 The witnesses of the heirs of Petrona, et al., testified that in 1958, their grandparents stopped paying the real property taxes. On the other hand, Sergio's tax declaration over Lot No. 2227 was dated as early as 1945. The heirs of Petrona, et al.'s conduct, and Sergio's continued unequivocal declaration of ownership over Lot No. 2227 thru payment of Lot No. 2227's real property taxes before the sale to MCIAA, establish that the heirs of Petrona, et al.'s possession is not in the concept of an owner. 23

The CA also found that the heirs of Petrona, et al.'s cause of action is already barred by laches because they did not take steps to assert their alleged ownership on Lot No. 2227. The CA observed that 44 years had passed since Mactan Air Base possessed Lot No. 2227, and eight (8) years had lapsed from their knowledge that MEPZ II claimed the subject lot, before the former decided to assert their ownership over the same. 24

The heirs of Petrona, et al., filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated December 9, 2013.

Hence this petition for review on certiorari, filed by the heirs of Petrona, et al.

Issue

Whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC's decision and in dismissing the complaint on the ground that petitioners failed to prove their ownership over Lot No. 2227.

Petitioners argue that their predecessors-in-interest own Lot No. 2227. During the latter's lifetime, no deed of sale was executed and that the subject lot was never sold in favor of respondents. 25 The heirs point out that Sergio is not the owner of Lot No. 2227 since no documentary evidence was presented to establish that Sergio acquired Lot No. 2227 from the decreed and registered owners, Petrona Ybañez, et al., or thru their successors-in-interest. The heirs also discovered that Sergio's parents owned Lot No. 2226, and that there is no doubt that Sergio sold Lot No. 2226 and not Lot No. 2227. To establish such fact, the heirs aver that it was Lot No. 2226 that Sergio conveyed to MCIAA since it is essentially utilized by MCIAA and within its perimeter fence. On the other hand, Lot No. 2227 is outside its perimeter fence, has not been utilized by MCIAA, and a portion of which was leased to a corporation, to the prejudice of petitioners. 26

Petitioners assert their right to inherit Lot No. 2227, being the legal heirs of their predecessor-in-interest. 27 They aver that they have been in possession of Lot No. 2227 since birth, and up to the present. MCIAA has only possessed Lot No. 2227 in the year 1994 when it leased the said lot to a corporation. 28

The heirs also presented Decree No. 459265 and the Cadastral Decision dated November 29, 1929 granted in favor of their predecessors-in-interest. Pursuant to Decree No. 459265, an original certificate of title (OCT) was subsequently issued. However, the OCT was either lost or destroyed during World War II. Thus, the heirs filed a petition for reconstitution of the lost OCT of Lot No. 2227 in the year 1999, which was the first time they discovered that Sergio executed a deed of absolute sale of Lot No. 2227 in favor of CAA. 29

On the issue of prescription and laches, petitioners claim that, these are inapplicable to the case. Lot No. 2227 is owned by the heirs and is covered by the OCT. As mentioned, the cadastral decision and the decree would prove the heirs' ownership of Lot No. 2227. 30 The heirs argue that since Lot No. 2227 is a registered land covered by a certificate of title in Petrona, et al.'s name, their title with respect to Lot No. 2227 is indefeasible and incontrovertible. Therefore, their right as registered owners to recover the possession of the registered property is imprescriptible. 31 Likewise, they claim that they are not guilty of laches because they filed a petition for reconstitution in the year 1999. 32 CScTED

Our Ruling

The Court finds the petition unmeritorious.

As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This Court will not entertain questions of fact because it is not within this Court's function to re-evaluate the probative value of the evidence of both parties which were already considered in the proceedings before the lower courts. 33 By exception, the Court may entertain questions of fact in the following instances:

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;

(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;

(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;

(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;

(7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;

(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;

(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and

(10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. 34

Upon a careful perusal of the issues raised by the petitioners, this Court finds that these are factual in nature and are beyond our jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari. The arguments raised in the petition are similar to the issues raised before the CA. To give due course to the petition requires a re-evaluation of the evidence presented by the parties which were already exhaustively reviewed by the RTC and the CA. Further, none of the exceptions to the rule are present in the instant case. Assuming arguendo that the Court gives due course to the petition, We find that the CA did not err in reversing the findings of the RTC.

In civil cases, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish his or her case by preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is the evidence that is of greater weight, or more convincing, than the evidence offered in opposition to it. 35 On the other hand, the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his or her favor. 36 The defendant has to controvert the plaintiff's prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of the plaintiff. 37

Here, petitioners failed to establish their case by preponderant evidence on record that they are entitled to possession and ownership of Lot No. 2227. While petitioners alleged that their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of Lot No. 2227 before World War II, the testimonies of their witnesses failed to establish such possession. No evidence was presented to prove that their predecessors-in-interest exercised acts of ownership over Lot No. 2227. Alfredo's sole testimony m relation to the cultivation of Lot No. 2227 are as follows: cDCEIA

ATTY. DUBLIN continues:

Q: I am (sic) correct in saying that your parents did not introduce any improvement on Lot 2227?

A: Actually there are plants like "Mansanitas" and we constructed a nipa hut.

Q: Does (sic) your cousins or the plantiffs n did not introduce any improved in that lot?

A: None.

Q: So you are now saying that it was only your father who was able to introduce improvements in this property?

A: Yes. It was only the plants that were planted by my father and in fact he told us that was the proof that Lot 2227 was actually owned by my grandparents. 38

Although Alfredo testified that his father planted mansanitas in Lot No. 2227, it was unclear when such cultivation actually occurred. There is also no evidence to prove that after World War II, the predecessors-in-interest of petitioners remained in the property. To the contrary, Alfredo testified that the Mactan Air Base already occupied Lot No. 2227 in the year 1955, to wit:

ATTY. DUBLI[N] continues:

Q: Is it not a fact that after 1955 this property was already occupied by the MCIAA?

A: No, it was occupied by the Mactan Air Base. 39

Rufino, Alfredo and Anacleto's testimonies cast doubts to their rightful interests over Lot No. 2227. They admitted that at present, none of them are occupying Lot No. 2227. They also did not give names of their relatives who they claimed are exercising acts of possession and ownership over Lot No. 2227.

They similarly testified that in the year 1958, their grandparents stopped paying the real property taxes for Lot No. 2227, and that the heirs did not pay the real property taxes for Lot No. 2227 from 1958 up to the present. They did not present any certification from the Assessors' Office that Petrona, et al., had declared Lot No. 2227 for taxation purposes. Thus, petitioners failed to prove their claim of payment of real property taxes. On the other hand, Sergio's tax declaration over Lot No. 2227 dated as early as 1945. 40 While a tax declaration is not a conclusive proof of ownership over the subject land, it is an indication that a person possesses the property in the concept of an owner; for nobody in his or her right mind would pay taxes for a property that is not in his or her actual or constructive possession. 41 Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership. 42

Neither can the heirs of Petrona, et al., base their claim of ownership on the alleged cadastral decision and municipal index of decree. The alleged cadastral decision and municipal index of decree are public documents, as defined under Section 19 (a), 43 Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Being public documents, compliance with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court is necessary. Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. x x x (25a) DHESca

Thus, the existence of these documents must be evidenced by an official publication or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record. Here, although Bunagan attested the copy of the cadastral decision 44 presented by petitioners, no evidence was presented to prove that Bunagan had legal custody of the decision. As to the machine copy of the municipal index of decree, 45 the attestation is not readable. Resultantly, although it bore the signature of the clerk of court, there is no proof to show that he or she is the public officer who has legal custody of the record of the cadastral decision. The machine copy of the municipal index of decree also did not bear the case number and date of decree. As regards the deed of sale, 46 it refers to Cadastral Case No. 15, while in the alleged copy of the cadastral decision, Lot No. 2227 was subject to Cadastral Case No. 19. These discrepancies, and the failure to comply with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court cast doubt as to the authenticity of the copies of the cadastral decision and municipal index of decree. Thus, the existence of these documents cannot be considered as prima facie evidence of the facts as claimed by petitioners. The latter should have presented witnesses who could have identified the subject public documents. For their failure to do so, this Court cannot conclude that Lot No. 2227 was decreed under Decree No. 459265, in favor of Petrona, et al.

This Court finds that there was failure to prove that Lot No. 2227 had been registered in the name of both parties. Although a cadastral decision and municipal index of decree over Lot No. 2227 were presented before the RTC, this Court cannot presume that a Torrens certificate of title was issued. Nothing in the records shows that the parties offered in evidence, a certification from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to prove the fact of registration. Further, this Court observes that the certificate of title numbers and the dates of issuance were not mentioned in the deed of sale and tax declarations 47 of the petitioners. The Certification 48 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City stating that the OCT of Lot No. 2227 was lost during World War II also did not make any reference to the number of certificates of title of the subject lot. In the absence of evidence showing that a Torrens certificate of title was issued for Lot No. 2227 it cannot be presumed petitioners own the same.

Jurisprudence has settled that a claim of ownership cannot be based simply on the testimonies of witnesses; much less on those interested parties, self-serving as they are. 49 When the testimonies of petitioners and Sergio's continued declaration of ownership over Lot No. 2227 by paying real property taxes 50 over the said lot prior to its sale to MCIAA are examined, petitioner's alleged possession cannot be considered as one in the concept of an owner.

On the issue of laches, the general rule that an action to recover registered land may not be barred by laches, 51 is inapplicable to this case. Since Lot No. 2227 was not proved to be registered under the Torrens System, the cause of action of petitioners is already barred by laches. Nonetheless, on assuming that Lot No. 2227 is titled under the Torren system, the claim of petitioners is still barred by laches. This Court, in certain cases, considered laches as a bar to recover even a registered property under the Torrens system.

The elements of laches are as follows:

(1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made an[d] for which the complaint seeks a remedy;

(2) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendant's 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 to be barred. 52

In Romero v. Natividad, 53 the Court ruled that:

[T]he essence of [laches] is the neglect to assert a right over a long period of time, may prevent recovery of a titled property. x x x [I]n the same case of Tambot, this Court further held that laches will bar recovery of the property even if the mode of transfer was invalid:

In Heirs of Batiog Lacamen vs. Heirs of Laruan, 65 SCRA 606, Laruan conveyed a parcel of land in La Trinidad, Benguet, to Batiog Lacamen in 1928 for P300. The deed was acknowledged before a notary in Baguio City, and immediately after the sale, Laruan delivered the certificate of title No. 420 to Lacamen who entered in possession of the land without securing a transfer certificate of title in his name. He introduced improvements and paid the taxes. After his death in 1942, his heirs remained in possession of the land and also paid the taxes. However, they discovered in 1957 that Laruan's heirs (Laruan had died in 1938) had obtained a new owner's copy of Certificate of Title No. 420 by alleging in a petition filed in court that their copy had been lost or destroyed. Lacamen's heirs sued for reconveyance. Laruan's heirs alleged that the sale to Lacamen was null and void under Act No. 2874 and Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Mindanao and Sulu. This Court upheld the title of Lacamen and his heirs despite the invalidity of the sale. cCHITA

It has been held that while a person may not acquire title to the registered property through continuous adverse possession, in derogation of the title of the original registered owner, the heir of the latter, however, may lose his right to recover back the possession of such property and the title thereto, by reason of laches. Much more should it be in the instant case where the possession of nearly 30 years or almost half a century now is in pursuance of sale which regrettably did not bear the approval of the executive authority but which the vendor never questioned during his life time. Laruan's laches extends to his heirs, the respondents-appellants herein, since they stand in privity with him. (emphases supplied)54

Here, all the elements of laches are present. Rufino testified that in the year 1991, he had already been aware and had heard that Lot No. 2227 is already part of MEPZ II, 55 while Alfredo admitted that after 1955, Mactan Air Base, MCIAA's predecessor-in-interest occupied Lot No. 2227. 56 Thus, petitioners cannot claim that they only discovered the adverse claim of MCIAA when the latter opposed the former's petition for reconstitution on October 19, 1999. Nothing in the records shows that petitioners took steps to assert their alleged ownership over Lot No. 2227. There is no evidence that the heirs inquired as to the basis of MCIAA's occupation or the news that Lot No. 2227 already forms part of MEPZ II. It is unusual and hardly persuasive that the petitioners, believing that they have a rightful claim over Lot No. 2227 did nothing to assert their ownership over the subject land. It took petitioners 44 years since Mactan Air Base possessed Lot No. 2227 in the year 1958, to file an action for ownership, nullity of deed, damages and attorney's fees against MCIAA in the year 2000. Further, it took the petitioners eight years counted from their knowledge in the year 1991, of Mactan Air Base's possession of Lot No. 2227, before they filed a petition for reconstitution of the OCT of the subject lot. Their long inaction converted petitioners' claim to a stale demand.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 15, 2013, and the Resolution dated December 9, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 03241 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-23.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corrales, with Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, and Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles concurring; id. at 141-156.

3.Id. at 163-164.

4. Penned by Presiding Judge Toribio S. Quiwag; id. at 123-137.

5.Id. at 142.

6.Id. at 142-143.

7.Id. at 143.

8.Id. at 143-144.

9.Id. at 144.

10.Id. at 145.

11.Id.

12.Id.

13.Id. at 145-146.

14.Id. at 146.

15.Id.

16.Id. at 147.

17.Id. at 137.

18.Id. at 155-156.

19.Id. at 149.

20.Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. (25a)

21.Rollo, p. 151.

22.Id. at 151-152.

23.Id. at 152-153.

24.Id. at 154-155.

25.Id. at 11-12.

26.Id. at 12-13.

27.Id. at 11-12.

28.Id. at 13.

29.Id. at 12.

30.Id. at 17.

31.Id. at 19.

32.Id. at 20.

33.KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Tiangco, G.R. No. 212136, October 4, 2021.

34.Neri v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 212467, July 5, 2021.

35.Spouses Ponce v. Aldanese, G.R. No. 216587, August 4, 2021.

36.Id.

37.Id.

38. Records, TSN Civil Case No. 5653-L, Alfredo Ybañez, March 24, 2003, p. 226.

39.Id. at 229.

40.Rollo, pp. 93-94.

41.Spouses Ponce v. Aldanese, supra note 35.

42.Heirs of Santiago v. Heirs of Santiago, 452 Phil. 238, 248 (2003).

43.Section 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are either public or private.

Public documents are:

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country.

44. Records, p. 82.

45.Id. at 83.

46.Id. at 142-145.

47.Id. at 146-156.

48.Id. at 87.

49.Jarantilla, Jr. v. Jarantilla, et al., 651 Phil. 13, 34 (2010).

50.Rollo, pp. 93-96.

51.Oropeza v. Allied Banking Corporation (now Philippine National Bank) and Register of Deeds for City of Davao, G.R. No. 222078, April 1, 2019.

52.Heirs of Cudal v. Spouses Suguitan, G.R. No. 244405, August 27, 2020, (citing Sapto, et al. v. Fabiana, 103 Phil. 683 [1958]).

53.Romero v. Natividad, 500 Phil. 322 (2005).

54.Id. at 329-330.

55. Records, TSN, Civil Case No. 5653-L, March 17, 2003, Rufino Ybañez, p. 196.

56. Records, TSN, Civil Case No. 5653-L, March 24, 2004, Alfredo Ybañez, p. 229.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.