Xerxes Abadiano v. Spouses Martir
Subject: Property, Evidence
Facts: Inocentes Banares and the heirs of his wife, Feliciana Villanueva executed anAgreement of Partition dated June 1, 1922over Lot No. 1318. The lot was partitionedand distributed to the following: (1)Demetrio Banares (Lot No. 1318-A), (2)Ramon and David Abadiano –grandchildrenof Inocentes and Feliciana (Lot No. 1318-B)and (3) Amando Banares (Lot No. 1318-C). The partition is embodied in a notarizedDeed of Partition. In 1923, an OriginalCertificate of Title (OCT) No. 20641 wasissued in the name of the spouses. In 1939,David Abadiano, who was absent during theexecution of the Agreement of Partition,executed a Deed of Confirmationacknowledging and ratifying the documentof partition. OCT No. 20641 wasadministratively reconstituted in 1962 and inlieu thereof, OCT No. RO-8211 was issuedover Lot No. 1318, still in the name of thespouses. The Agreement of Partition and theDeed of Confirmation were annotated at theback of the OCT. In 1957, Demetrio sold hisshare to his son Leopoldo. The latter thenfiled a petition praying for confirmation of the Agreement and the Deed of Confirmation and the Deed of Sale betweenhim and his father, and for the issuance of anew title over the property. The Courtordered the issuance of a TransferCertificate of Title (TCT) in the name of Leopoldo, Amando, and Ramon and David.Petitioner insists that this is the valid andsubsisting title over the property and therewas no other sale to anyone.Respondents allege however that prior tothe issuance of the TCT, Ramon for himself and on behalf of David, had already soldtheir rights and interests over Lot No. 1318-
I won’t be discussing evidence. Wala akongkarapatan. The case touches on Rule 130,Section 3
C to Victor Garde, as evidenced by anotarized document of sale (Compra YVenta) dated June 3, 1922. They furtherallege that from the time of sale, VictorGarde and his heirs were in continuous,public, peaceful and uninterruptedpossession and occupation in the concept of an owner of the Lot. Victor’s heirs sold thesame to Jose Garde who in turn sold it toLolita Martir in 1979. Alleging that theAbadianos entered the property andharvested sugarcane from it, the spousesfiled an Action to Quiet Title and/or Recoveryof Possession with Damages in 1982. Thetrial court ruled for the Martirs, holding thatthe spouses and their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of theproperty for 60 years and the Abadianostherefore were guilty of laches. CA affirmed.Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.Issue: WON the petitioner is guilty of lachesHeld: No. Under the Property RegistrationDecree, no title to registered land inderogation of the title of the registeredowner shall be acquired by prescription oradverse possession. Nonetheless, even if a Torrens title is indefeasible andimprescriptible, the registered landownermay lose his right to recover the possessionof his registered property by reason of laches.
Laches has been defined asneglect or omission to assert a right,taken in conjunction with lapse of timeand other circumstances causingprejudice to an adverse party.
fourbasic elements are
: 1) conduct on the partof the defendant, or of one under whom heclaims, giving rise to the situation of whichcomplaint is made and for which thecomplaint seeks a remedy; 2) delay inasserting the complainant’s rights, thecomplainant having had knowledge or noticeof the defendant’s conduct and having beenafforded an opportunity to institute suit; 3)lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant wouldassert the right on which he bases his suit;