G.R. No.

L-14676 January 31, 1963

CANDIDA VILLALUZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
JUAN NEME and FELICISIMA VILLAFRANCA, defendants-appellees.
FACTS:
Maria Rocabo died intestate leaving a parcel of land granted her under
Homestead Patent and was covered by an OCT. She had 6 children, three
of which is alive namely, Sinforosa, Patricia and Maria Villaluz, the
remaining 3 were dead leaving their children as representatives to their
supposed shares.
After approval of her application but before granting the patent, Maria
Rocabo donated a portion of the said land to Maria and Patricia with two
notarial deeds of Donation. Thus, the donation was accepted by the donee
and took actual possession of their respective portions. Maria cultivated
and improved the said land; however, she and her sister Patricia forgot to
present the deed of Donations to the Bureau of Lands.
Subsequently, the patent was granted and an OCT was issued in the name
of Rocabo. Because Sinforosa who had custody of the title would not
surrender it to the donee, unless given a portion, On September of 1939,
Sinforosa, Maria and Patricia executed an extrajudicial portion among
themselves without the consent of their nephew and nieces.
By virtue thereof, the OCT was cancelled and a TCT was issued under
their name upon having representations that they were only the heirs of the
Deceased, Rocabo.
The 3 sister sold the land to Ramona Pajarillo wife of Adriano Mago and
Angela wife of Juan Neme. On August of 1953, the heirs of Adriano and
Ramona sold their undivided interest to Juan Neme who sold the same to
Villafranca.
Thereafter, the nieces of the 3 sisters came to know that the land that was
being administered by their aunts were already cold and in possession of
the Defendants. Petitioner filed a complaint for partition and recovery of
their respective shares. It also appears that the deed of Sale of the land in
favour of defendant had not been registered and recorded under CA 141
and Land Registration Law.
The Lower Court dismissed the case. Thus, elevated to the SC.
RULING:
The deed of Extrajudicial partition was fraudulent and vicious, the same
having been executed among the three sisters without including their co-
heirs who has no knowledge of and consent to the same. Under the time-
honored principle of Nemo dat quod non habet, the three sisters could not
have sold what did not belong to them.
Section 4, Rule 74 refers only to the settlement and distribution of the
estate of the deceased by the heirs who make such partition among
themselves in good faith, believing that they are the only heirs with the right
to success. The heirs who participated in the extrajudicial settlement were
possessing the property as administrators or trustees and in behalf of the
other co-heirs who were excluded, Such co-heirs have the right to vindicate
their inheritance regardless of the lapse of time. Thus, the 2 year limitation
is not applicable to those who had not taken part in the settlement or who
had no knowledge of the same.










G.R. No. L-61791 January 28, 1983
PURIFICACION ALARCON and ROSAURO ALARCON, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE ABDULWAHID BIDIN, District Judge, Court of First
Instance, Branch I, Zamboanga City, and FLORENTINO SERGAS,
MOISES SERGAS, ANASTACIO SERGAS, CRESENCIA SERGAS,
TOLENTINO SERGAS, ENGELERTO SERGAS, CARMELITA SERGAS,
and DOMINGO ROJAS FRANCISCO, respondents.
FACTS:
The property involved is located in Malugatay, Zamboanga covered by an
OCT in the names of Roberto Alarcon and Guillerma Trinidad.
Roberto (father of herein petitioners) leased the property to Esteban
Sergas which was duly recorded in the OCT. After 3 yrs, Roberto sold a
portion of his undivided share to Esteban Sergas which was entered in the
title and cancelling the lease. Denying the genuineness of the "Escrituras
de Venta" under oath, and alleging that the thumbmark in the Deed of Sale
in favor of Esteban Sergas is not Roberto Alarcon's nor is he "Alberto"
Alarcon, and that the document in favor of Adela Alvarez was neither
signed by Roberto, petitioners, as plaintiffs, filed suit for recovery of what
they allege is their portion of cadastral lot 3178 on October 23, 1978.
On July of 1928, Roberto sold another portion of his share to Adela Alvarez
who sold the same to Domingo Rojas Francisco. Private respondents move
to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it is barred by laches. However,
petitioners opposed o the ground that no prescription can lie against their
fathers recorded title.
The RTC judge dismissed the complaint as it is barred by laches and
denied reconsideration.
RULING:
Petitioners' allegation that their deceased father, Roberto Alarcon, never
sold the land in litigation is refuted by the "Escrituras de Venta" which he
had executed, one in favor of Esteban Sergas, and the other in favor of
Adela Alvarez. The denial by petitioners of the genuineness of the deeds is
overcome by the fact that from the date of sale in favor of Esteban Sergas
in 1926, the latter had taken possession of the property and has been in
adverse possession under claim of ownership ever since, followed by his
successors-in-interest, the private respondents surnamed Sergas.
Similarly, the other vendee, Adela Alvarez, also took possession from the
date of sale in her favor in 1928 until she sold her portion in 1954 to private
respondent Domingo Rojas Francisco, who has also been in uninterrupted
possession since said date. Noteworthy also is the fact that from the dates
of the sales in 1926 and 1928, respectively, up to the time of his death in
1960, or approximately at least 32, and at the most 34 years, the vendor
Roberto Alarcon took no steps to rescind the sales nor reivindicate the
property. And as far as petitioners are concerned, more than 50 years had
elapsed since the execution of the deeds of sale in 1926 and 1928 and the
date they instituted suit for recovery of possession in 1978. Clearly, their
passivity and inaction and, before them, that of their father, constituted
laches. As held by respondent Judge, their cause of action must be
considered barred for it has been converted into a stale demand. And,
although, as petitioners claim, the defense of laches is not a ground for a
motion to dismiss there would be no point to continue litigating this case in
view of the finding that petitioners are guilty thereof.
True, land registered under the Torrens System may not be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession, as petitioners correctly contend. The
protection given by law is in favor of registered owners. As it is, although
title to the disputed property is still in the name of Roberto Alarcon, it has
been subjected to the registration in 1963 of the sale made by him to
Esteban Sergas. Technically, therefore, the latter became the owner in
1963 of the portion of the land sold to him. It may also be stated that if
petitioners' cause of action in seeking the nullification of the sales is
predicated on fraud, the same has prescribed for not having been brought
within four years from the inscription of the deed of sale in favor of Esteban
Sergas in 1963.