Mateo vs. Diaz

The equitable doctrine of laches cannot prevail against the specific statutory provision declaring that title to registered land is imprescriptible; heirs of a registered owner merely step into the shoes of their predecessor-in-interest and are not barred by laches or prescription from claiming the decedent's property.

The dispute arose among the heirs of Simeona Manuel-Mateo regarding an 11-hectare riceland located at Bulak, Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Simeona had two daughters (Cornelia Mateo-Diaz and Felisa Mateo-Policarpio) from her first marriage to Canuto Mateo, and two sons (Quirino and Matias Mateo, the petitioners) from her second marriage to Claro Mateo. The property was registered in 1910 under Original Certificate of Title No. 206 in the name of "Claro Mateo, married to Simeona Manuel." Following the deaths of Claro (1932) and Simeona (1948), the children executed a partition in 1951. However, in 1979, the petitioners executed an extra-judicial partition of the OCT No. 206 property to the exclusion of their half-sisters' heirs, leading to prior litigation where the partition was declared void and the petitioners were criminally convicted of falsification. The petitioners subsequently filed the instant case to recover possession and ownership, facing claims of prescription, laches, and allegations that the land had been conveyed to the respondents' predecessors.

• The property subject of the controversy is an 11-hectare riceland located at Bulak, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 206 issued on October 21, 1910 in the name of "Claro Mateo, married to Simeona Manuel."
• Simeona Manuel-Mateo was previously married to Canuto Mateo, with whom she had two daughters: Cornelia Mateo (who married Ulpiano Diaz) and Felisa Mateo (who married Cirilo Policarpio). Canuto Mateo died in 1898.
• Simeona remarried Claro Mateo (first cousin of Canuto), and they had two sons: Quirino Mateo and Matias Mateo (the petitioners). Claro Mateo died on September 8, 1932, and Simeona died on October 18, 1948.
• On June 12, 1951, the children of Simeona from both marriages executed a document entitled "Katibayan ng Pagkakahati-hati ng Lupa," partitioning three separate parcels of land located at Bulak, Sta. Maria, Bulacan.
• On February 15, 1979, in San Carlos City, Pangasinan, petitioners executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition covering the 11-hectare land under OCT No. 206, to the exclusion of their half-sisters Cornelia and Felisa (or their heirs). This deed was published in the newspaper Balita.
• In 1981, the children and grandchildren of Cornelia and Felisa filed Civil Case No. SM-975 for Declaration of Nullity of Extra-Judicial Partition with Damages and a criminal complaint for falsification of public document against petitioners.
• On September 25, 1984, the Court of First Instance (later RTC) of Bulacan declared the 1979 extra-judicial partition void and inexistent. Petitioners were also convicted in the criminal case.
• In the present case (filed in 1987), respondents claimed that the land had been the subject of several conveyances prior to 1979, including possession by Melquiades Policarpio since time immemorial, sale by Felix Herrera to Juana Badillo in 1925 (later to Ulpiano Diaz), and acquisition by Felisa Mateo from Claro and Simeona by purchase in 1914.
• Petitioners claimed they discovered OCT No. 206 only in 1977 or 1978 and immediately took steps to assert their rights by executing the 1979 partition and filing the instant case.

• Petitioners are the only surviving children of Claro Mateo, the registered owner of the land covered by OCT No. 206, and are entitled to recover ownership and possession thereof.
• Prescription and laches do not apply to registered land under the Torrens system pursuant to Section 44 of Act No. 496 (now Section 47 of P.D. 1529), which provides that no title to registered land shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession in derogation of the registered owner.
• As heirs of the registered owner, petitioners merely stepped into the shoes of their predecessor and are not estopped from claiming the property; imprescriptibility extends to heirs.
• The principle of laches, being an equitable doctrine, cannot override a specific statutory provision declaring registered titles imprescriptible.
• Petitioners are not guilty of laches because they immediately filed the present case upon discovering the title in 1977 or 1978.
• The Court of Appeals erred in ordering the cancellation of OCT No. 206 and the issuance of new titles to respondents, as this violates the indefeasibility of a Torrens title, which can only be cancelled upon proof of transfer by the registered owner.

• The cause of action of petitioners has already prescribed, as real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty (30) years.
• Petitioners are guilty of laches for sleeping on their rights and failing to take positive steps to assert their interests over the land for an unreasonable period.
• Ownership can be acquired through possession in good faith and with just title for ten (10) years, or through uninterrupted adverse possession for thirty (30) years without need of just title or good faith.
• OCT No. 206 is non-existent or should be cancelled because the land had been the subject of several conveyances to respondents' predecessors-in-interest (e.g., Melquiades Policarpio, Felix Herrera, Juana Badillo, Ulpiano Diaz, and Felisa Mateo).
• The case is barred by prior judgment (res judicata) arising from Civil Case No. SM-975.
• The action is between members of the same family and no earnest efforts toward a compromise have been exerted as required by law.
• The case was not referred to the barangay for conciliation as mandated by P.D. 1508.

• Procedural: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding attorney's fees to the respondents.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether prescription and the equitable principle of laches are applicable in derogation of the title of the registered owner.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the cancellation of OCT No. 206 and the issuance of new titles to the respondents who are occupying the subject land.

• Procedural: The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners could not be liable for attorney's fees. An award of attorney's fees must have factual, legal, or equitable justification and cannot be left to speculation and conjecture; the Court of Appeals failed to make findings of fact and law that would justify the award.
• Substantive: The Court held that prescription and laches do not apply to registered land under the Torrens system. Section 44 of Act No. 496 (now Section 47 of P.D. 1529) explicitly provides that no title to registered land in derogation of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Laches, being an equitable principle defined as "justice outside legality," is applied only in the absence of and not against statutory law or rules of procedure; it cannot override a specific provision declaring registered titles imprescriptible. The Court further held that heirs of the registered owner are not estopped from claiming the property, as they merely step into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law and are merely the continuation of the personality of their predecessor-in-interest. Finally, the Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the cancellation of OCT No. 206 and the issuance of new titles to the occupants, as this violates the indefeasibility of a Torrens title, which can only be cancelled upon competent proof that the registered owner transferred his rights to another; otherwise, title passes to his heirs only by testate or intestate succession. The case was remanded to the trial court for determination of the heirs of Claro Mateo in a proper proceeding.

• Imprescriptibility of Registered Land — Title to land registered under the Torrens system cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession against the registered owner or his successors-in-interest, as explicitly provided by Section 44 of Act No. 496 (now Section 47 of P.D. 1529).
• Laches versus Statutory Law — The equitable principle of laches, which is defined as "justice outside legality," is applied only in the absence of and not against statutory law or rules of procedure; it cannot prevail against a specific provision of law establishing imprescriptible rights.
• Heirs as Continuation of Predecessor's Personality — Heirs of a registered owner merely step into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law and are merely the continuation of the personality of their predecessor-in-interest; consequently, they are not estopped from asserting the imprescriptibility of the registered title.
• Indefeasibility of Torrens Title — A certificate of title issued under the Torrens system can only be cancelled upon proof of transfer by the registered owner to another party; it cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of adverse possession or prescription, and title passes to heirs exclusively by succession.

• "Laches may not prevail against a specific provision of law, since equity, which has been defined as 'justice outside legality' is applied in the absence of and not against statutory law or rules of procedure."
• "The property in litigation, being registered land under the provisions of Act 496, is not subject to prescription, and it may not be claimed that imprescriptibility is in favor only of the registered owner, because as we have held in the cases of Teofila de Guinoo, et al., v. Court of Appeals, (97 Phil. 235) and Gil Atun, et al., v. Eusebio Nuñez (97 Phil. 762), prescription is unavailing not only against the registered owner, but also against his hereditary successors because the latter merely step into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law and are merely the continuation of the personality of their predecessor in interest."

• St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc. v. Cleofas — Cited to establish that a party who files a case immediately upon discovering that the land is covered by a transfer certificate in the name of another person is not guilty of laches.
• J. M. Tuason & Co. v. Aguirre — Cited for the rule that an action to recover possession of registered land never prescribes pursuant to Section 44 of Act No. 496.
• Barcelona v. Barcelona — Cited to establish that prescription is unavailing against both the registered owner and his hereditary successors, as heirs merely step into the shoes of the decedent.
• Umbay v. Alecha; Quevada v. Glorioso; Bishop v. Court of Appeals — Cited as part of a body of jurisprudence holding that prescription and laches do not apply to registered land under the Torrens system.
• Causapin v. Court of Appeals; Conte v. Palma — Cited for the principle that equity is applied in the absence of, not against, statutory law.
• DBP v. Court of Appeals; Olan v. Court of Appeals — Cited regarding the requirements that an award of attorney's fees must have factual and legal justification.

• Section 44 of Act No. 496 (The Land Registration Act) — Now Section 47 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), providing that no title to registered land in derogation of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
• Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court — Governing petitions for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court.