Bishop vs. Court of Appeals

The registered owner of land under the Torrens system has an imprescriptible right to recover possession from any person occupying it without right, and such title cannot be defeated by claims of acquisitive prescription, laches, or allegations that the land is part of the public domain, as the decree of registration is conclusive and binding upon all persons.

Spouses Manuel and Jesusa Salang held Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-29018 over a 1,652-square-meter parcel of land in Calapacuan, Subic, Zambales. Portions of this titled land were occupied by the nine petitioners, who had been in possession for a considerable period. The Salangs filed an action for recovery of possession (accion reivindicatoria) against the petitioners in the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City.

• Nature of the Action: The private respondents, as registered owners, filed a complaint for recovery of possession against the petitioners, who were occupying portions of their titled land.
• Petitioners' Defenses: In their answer, the petitioners claimed the occupied lots were part of the public domain and could not have been validly registered. They asserted long, continuous possession and presented tax declarations in their names. Some claimed acquisition through sale or inheritance.
• Trial Court Findings: The RTC found for the respondents, holding that their registered title gave them the lawful right to possession. It gave "scant consideration" to the petitioners' Bureau of Forestry certification alleging the land was alienable and disposable public land, ruling such certification had no legal basis against a court-issued title. The court also held that tax declarations and length of possession could not defeat a Torrens title.
• Appellate Court Action: The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

• Public Domain Status: Petitioners argued the land in question was part of the public domain and could not have been validly registered under the Torrens system, citing a certification from the Bureau of Forestry.
• Acquisition by Laches: Petitioners maintained they had acquired title to their respective lots by laches due to the respondents' long inaction despite their known occupation.
• Status as Builders in Good Faith: In the alternative, petitioners argued they should be considered builders in good faith entitled to the rights under Articles 448, 546, 547, and 548 of the Civil Code.

• Indefeasibility of Title: Respondents countered that their title, traceable to an Original Certificate of Title issued in 1910, was incontrovertible and conclusive against the whole world.
• Imprescriptible Right to Recover: Respondents argued that as registered owners, their right to eject illegal occupants was imprescriptible and could not be barred by laches.
• Lack of Good Faith: Respondents contended the petitioners could not be builders in good faith because Torrens registration is constructive notice to all, and the petitioners knew they had no right to occupy the land.

• Validity of the Torrens Title: Whether the land was part of the public domain and thus could not have been validly registered under the Torrens system.
• Laches and Prescription: Whether the petitioners acquired title to the lots through laches or acquisitive prescription.
• Builder in Good Faith Status: Whether the petitioners could be considered builders in good faith entitled to the rights under Articles 448, 546, 547, and 548 of the Civil Code.

• Validity of the Torrens Title: The respondents' Torrens title was valid and indefeasible. The Original Certificate of Title issued in 1910 was now incontrovertible, and the presumption of regularity applied to its issuance. A certification from the Bureau of Forestry could not prevail over a judicial decree of registration. Furthermore, an action to annul a title on the ground of fraud prescribes one year from the decree's entry, a period long expired.
• Laches and Prescription: The respondents' right to recover their registered property was imprescriptible and not barred by laches. The Torrens system's purpose is to quiet title and allow the owner to rest secure; thus, registered land cannot be lost through acquisitive prescription or laches, regardless of the length of unauthorized possession.
• Builder in Good Faith Status: The petitioners were not builders in good faith. A builder in good faith is one unaware of any flaw in his title at the time of building. The petitioners knew they had no right to occupy the land, as Torrens registration constitutes constructive notice to the whole world. Their insistence that the land was public domain further demonstrated their awareness of the flaw in their claimed right.

• Indefeasibility of a Torrens Title — A certificate of title issued under the Torrens system becomes incontrovertible and binding upon the whole world after the lapse of the one-year period to file an action for fraud. The decree of registration is conclusive as to the registrability of the land.
• Imprescriptibility of Action for Recovery of Registered Land — The right of a registered owner to recover possession of his property is not subject to prescription or laches. No length of unauthorized or tolerated possession can ripen into ownership against the titled owner.
• Constructive Notice from Registration — Registration of land under the Torrens system constitutes constructive notice to all persons of the registrant's ownership. This negates a claim of good faith by subsequent occupants or builders.
• Definition and Requisites of a Builder in Good Faith — A builder in good faith is one who builds on land with the belief that he is the owner or has a right to build thereon, and is unaware of any flaw in his title or mode of acquisition.

• "The real purpose of the Torrens system of land registration is to quite title to land; to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title... That being the purpose of the law, it would seem that once the title was registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the 'mirador de su casa,' to avoid the possibility of losing his land." — Reiterating the foundational principle from Legarda v. Saleeby on the security afforded by the Torrens system.
• "The Court of Appeals was correct in calling them squatters for having entered, without permission or authority, land that did not belong to them." — Characterizing the petitioners' possession as unlawful in light of the registered title.
• "A certification from an administrative body cannot prevail against a court decision declaring the land to be registrable." — Establishing the hierarchy between administrative certifications and judicial decrees of registration.

• Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590 — Cited as the early and controlling precedent establishing the principle that the purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title and that a registered owner may rest secure in his ownership.
• J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Macalindog, 6 SCRA 938 — Cited for the rule that an action to invalidate a certificate of title on the ground of fraud prescribes after one year from the entry of the decree of registration.
• Natalia Realty Corp. v. Vallez, 144 SCRA 292 — Cited for the doctrine that registered land cannot be lost through prescription.
• Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 75 — Cited for the definition of a builder in good faith.

• Article 428, New Civil Code — Cited by the trial court to affirm the owner's right to enjoy, possess, and recover his property.
• Section 38 of Act No. 496 (now Section 32 of PD 1529) — Cited for the rule that an action to reopen a decree of registration on the ground of fraud must be brought within one year from the date of the entry of the decree.
• Section 47 of PD 1529 — Implicitly referenced in the discussion on the indefeasibility of titles and the imprescriptibility of actions for recovery.

• Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa
• Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino
• Justice Edgardo L. Medialdea
• Justice Jose A.R. Bellosillo