You are on page 1of 11

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court


ROGELIO J. JAKOSALEM and G.R. No. 175025
Petitioners, Present:

CORONA, C. J., Chairperson,
- versus- DEL CASTILLO,
PEREZ,⃰ and

Respondent. February 15, 2012



This case exemplifies the age-old rule that the one who holds a Torrens title over a
lot is the one entitled to its possession.[1]

This Petition for Review on Certiorari[2] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails
the Decision[3] dated August 3, 2006 and the Resolution[4] dated October 4, 2006 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 79283.

Factual Antecedents

On August 13, 1966, respondent Col. Roberto S. Barangan (respondent Barangan)
entered into a Land Purchase Agreement[5] with Ireneo S. Labsilica of Citadel Realty

when he was about to retire from the government service. Jakosalem (petitioner Jakosalem). respondent Barangan filed a Complaint[24] for Recovery of Possession. 1994. Respondent Barangan prayed that petitioners Dulfo and Jakosalem be ordered to vacate the subject property and . 171453. In reply. 165456. N-10772.[14] He was not. respondent Barangan went to visit his property. docketed as Civil Case No. Surveying Services to conduct a relocation survey of the subject property based on the technical description appearing on respondent Barangans TCT.[9] Consequently. Antipolo. hence.[12] was issued in his name. 1994. TCT No. Rogelio J. 165456. he has been dutifully paying real property taxes for the said property. It was only then that he discovered that it was being occupied by petitioner Godofredo Dulfo (petitioner Dulfo) and his family. 1994. a complaint for Violation of Presidential Decree No. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. a Deed of Absolute Sale[8] was executed on August 31. he was often assigned to various stations in the Philippines.[20] The case. Antipolo City.[7]Upon full payment of the purchase price. however. where he was planning to build a retirement home.[23] On November 17.[13] Since then. the complaint was filed before the Prosecutors Office of Rizal.Corporation whereby respondent Barangan agreed to purchase on installment a 300 square meter parcel of land. Jonco) of J.[22] The relocation survey revealed that the property occupied by petitioner Dulfo and his family is the same property covered by respondent Barangans title.[21] On May 28. the old title. 1994. On February 19. respondent Barangan filed with Barangay San Luis. petitioner Atty. 1976 in his favor. against petitioners Dulfo and Jakosalem with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). 772 or the Anti- Squatting Law against petitioners. Rizal.[10] which was a transfer from TCT No. TCT No. was dismissed because the issue of ownership must first be resolved in a civil action. 94-3423.[19] No settlement was reached. respondent Barangan sent a letter[17] to petitioner Dulfo demanding that he and his family vacate the subject property within 30 days. however.[6] located in Antipolo. Jonco (Engr. Branch 73. the son-in-law of petitioner Dulfo. respondent Barangan commissioned Geodetic Engineer Lope C.[15] On December 23. able to physically occupy the subject property because as a member of the Philippine Air Force.[16] On February 4.[11] was cancelled and a new one. sent a letter[18] claiming ownership over the subject property. 1993. Rizal.

[33] The defense moved for the dismissal of the case on demurrer to evidence but was denied by the RTC.[35] The defense likewise requested an ocular inspection of the subject property to show that it is not the property covered by respondent Barangans title.[31] (2) Candida Lawis. instead of granting the request. who stated under oath that petitioner Dulfo used to rent the lot owned by Dionisia Ordialez (Estardos Aunt) and that when petitioner Dulfo could no longer pay the rent. 2003.[27] that they have been in possession of the subject property since May 8.[36] However. 2000 abandoned its request for an ocular inspection claiming that it was no longer necessary.[42] The RTC further said that even . plus moral and exemplary damages and cost of suit.[40] Ruling of the Regional Trial Court On March 19. Nicanor Samson (Samson).[26] petitioners Dulfo and Jakosalem claimed that the subject property was assigned to petitioner Jakosalem by Mr. the defense presented petitioner Jakosalem who maintained that he acquired the subject property by assignment from its previous owner. the RTC issued an Order[37] dated September 15. respondent Barangan testified for himself and presented three witnesses: (1) Gregorio Estardo (Estardo). Rizal.[38] The resurvey. did not push through because the defense in an Omnibus Motion[39] dated September 20.[29] During the trial. 1979. he and his family squatted on the property of respondent Barangan. the RTC rendered a Decision[41]against respondent Barangan for failure to present sufficient evidence to prove his claim. Samson. the caretaker of Villa Editha Subdivision and Rodville Subdivision[30] employed by Citadel Realty Corporation. 2000 directing Engr. a representative of the Municipal Assessor of Antipolo.00 for the use and occupancy of the subject property from May 1979 until the time the subject property is vacated. who testified that the property occupied by petitioner Dulfo and his family and the property owned by respondent Barangan are one and the same.000. (3) Engr.[34] Thus. a monthly rental of P3. Jonco. who confirmed that respondent Barangan is included in the list of registered owners of lots in Villa Editha Subdivision III and Rodville Subdivision[32] and. Romulo Unciano of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Antipolo City to conduct a resurvey or replotting of land based on the title of respondent Barangan and to submit a report within 15 days.[25] In their Answer with Counterclaim.[28] and that the property covered by respondent Barangans title is not the property occupied by petitioner Dulfo and his family.

000 for moral damages. thus. temperate or moderate damages. prescription and laches have already set in. N-10772 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Rizal.000 as actual damages. the CA ruled that he is entitled to reasonable compensation for the use of the property with interest. SO ORDERED.[46] to wit: WHEREFORE. 94- 3423 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and a new one is rendered declaring. respondent Barangan may no longer recover the same. N-10772. Block 5. Rizal. . c. and attorneys fees. Appellant Roberto S. for insufficiency of evidence judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. Barangay San Luis. d. 2. Branch 73 in Civil Case No. The Decision dated 19 March 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City.[44] Ruling of the Court of Appeals On appeal. and e. P20. P50. premises considered. b. P100.000 for litigation expenses. premises considered. Barangan is entitled to the possession of the subject property-Lot 11. as well as the payment of moral.[45] And since respondent Barangan was deprived of possession of the subject property. the plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay defendant Jakosalem the following amounts: a. P25. Antipolo. of the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-60846 situated in Rodville Subdivision. By way of counterclaim. the appeal is GRANTED. It found respondent Barangan entitled to recover possession of the subject property because he was able to sufficiently prove the identity of the subject property and that the same is owned by him. as evidenced by TCT No.000 as exemplary damages. the CA reversed the findings of the RTC.[43] The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE.if the subject property is owned by respondent Barangan. Costs of suit. as follows: 1. Appellees and all persons deriving rights under them who are occupants of the subject property are ordered to vacate the subject property and surrender peaceful possession thereof to appellant.

000. Appellees are ordered to pay to appellant the amount of Php100. WHETHER X X X LACHES AND PRESCRIPTION [HAVE] BARRED THE FILING OF THIS CASE. TEMPERATE OR MODERATE [DAMAGES] AND ATTORNEYS FEES. Php50. X X X IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH EVIDENCE AND LAW.00 as moral damages. the instant petition with the following issues: 1.00 as attorneys fees.000. Appellees and all persons deriving rights under them who are occupants of the subject property are ordered to pay to appellant reasonable compensation for the use of the subject property in the amount of Php3. 5. 4.[49] They claim that the relocation survey conducted by Engr. WHETHER X X X THE AMOUNT OF PHP3. SO ORDERED.00 AS MONTHLY LEASE RENTAL OR COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS REASONABLE. and 4.000. from the date of promulgation of this Decision until full payment of all said reasonable compensation.00 per month from 17 November 1994 until they vacate the subject property and turn over the possession to appellant.[47] Issues Hence.00 as temperate or moderate damages. WHETHER X X X THE GRANT OF XXX MORAL. Jonco violated the agreement they made .[48] Petitioners Arguments Petitioners Dulfo and Jakosalem contend that the CA erred in reversing the findings of the RTC as respondent Barangans property was not properly identified. WHETHER X X X [BARANGAN] HAS FULLY SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 434 OF THE CIVIL CODE X X X. WHETHER X X X [BARANGAN] WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE EXACT LOCATION OF HIS PROPERTY DESCRIBED UNDER TCT NO. N-10772 [AND WHETHER] THE PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY DULFO [IS] THE SAME PROPERTY CLAIMED BY [BARANGAN]. 3. and Php50.000. Cost against appellees.000. plus legal interest of 12% per annum. 3. 2.

[62] and Estardo. the caretaker of the subdivision. In other words. respondent Barangan was able to prove the identity of the property and his title.[63] He likewise submitted as evidence the .[56] Moreover.before the Barangay that the survey should be conducted in the presence of both parties. on the other hand. the property must be identified. he is entitled to its possession.[59] (2) Deed of Absolute Sale. N-10772. excessive and without factual and legal bases.[54] He maintains that his Torrens title prevails over the Assignment of a Right[55] presented by petitioners. in order to recover possession.[58] In this case. they contend that the damages ordered by the CA are exorbitant.[50] They also claim that the title number stated in the Land Purchase Agreement is not the same number found in the Deed of Absolute Sale. who conducted the relocation survey. TCT No. and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendants claim.[61] To prove the identity of the property.[60] (3) and a Torrens title registered under his name. Respondent Barangan is entitled to recover the subject property Article 434 of the Civil Code provides that [i]n an action to recover. and (2) his title. who showed respondent Barangan the exact location of the subject property. To prove his title to the property. argues that being the registered owner of the subject property. laches and prescription do not apply against him as there was no delay on his part to assert his right to the property.[57] Our Ruling The petition lacks merit. he offered the testimonies of Engr. he presented in evidence the following documents: (1) Land Purchase Agreement.[52] Lastly.[51] They likewise insist that laches and prescription barred respondent Barangan from filing the instant case. a person must prove (1) the identity of the land claimed.[53] Respondents Arguments Respondent Barangan. Jonco.

their unjustified refusal only shows either of two things: (1) that they know for a fact that the result would be detrimental to their case.00[70] per month from November 17. as testified by respondent Barangan and Engr. Petitioners were informed[65] beforehand of the scheduled relocation survey on May 29.[67] Records also show that during the trial. (LRC) Psd-60846. 1994 but they opted not to attend. they are now estopped from questioning the results of the relocation survey. The legal interest of which shall be at the rate of 6% per annum from November 17. 1994 and at the rate of 12% per annum from the time the judgment of this Court becomes final and executory until the obligation is fully satisfied. In fact. up to the time petitioners vacate the subject property. TCT No.Verification Survey Plan of Lot 11. In fact. the date of judicial demand.[64] Petitioners contention that the relocation survey was done in violation of their agreement deserves scant consideration. Block 5. the persistent refusal of petitioners to participate in the relocation survey does not speak well of their claim that they are not occupying respondent Barangans property. the RTC ordered the DENR to conduct a resurvey of the subject property. the relocation survey had to be postponed several times because petitioners refused to participate. 1994. or (2) that they have doubts that the result would be in their favor. Neither is there any discrepancy between the title number stated in the Land Purchase Agreement and the Deed of Absolute Sale.000. the title stated in the Deed of Absolute Sale. which was plotted based on the technical description appearing on respondent Barangans title. the title stated in the Land Purchase Agreement. but petitioners moved that the same be abandoned claiming that the resurvey would only delay the proceedings.[69] Hence. 171453.[66] By refusing to attend and participate in the relocation survey. 165456. he is entitled to reasonable compensation in the amount of P3. is a transfer from TCT No. both TCTs pertain to the same property. As correctly found by the CA. Jonco. Respondent Barangan is entitled to actual and moral damages as well as attorneys fees Since respondent Barangan was deprived of possession of the subject property.[68] To us.[71] .

MARIANO C.00 as attorneys fees because it is sanctioned by law.000. SO ORDERED.[72] For the mental anguish. representing the expenses for the relocation survey.R. must be deleted as these expenses were not alleged in the complaint. CORONA . The reasonable monthly rental of P3. paragraphs 2 and 11 of Article 2208[75] of the Civil Code.00 shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from November 17.000. 1994. no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. CV No. and serious anxiety suffered by respondent Barangan. The award of moral damages is REDUCED to P50. The assailed Decision dated August 3. 2006 and the Resolution dated October 4. as to the issue of laches and prescription.[74] Although not alleged in the complaint. Jurisprudence consistently holds that prescription and laches can not apply to registered land covered by the Torrens system because under the Property Registration Decree. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: RENATO C. 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA- G.[77] WHEREFORE.00. which is the amount prayed for in the complaint.000. we sustain the CAs award of P50. the petition is hereby DENIED.[76] Laches and prescription do not apply Finally. we agree with the CA that these do not apply in the instant case. he is entitled to moral damages under Article 2217[73] of the Civil Code but in the reduced amount of P50.00.000. however.000. 79283 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. The award of temperate damages in the amount of P50. and at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the finality of this judgment until the obligation is fully satisfied.00 while the award of temperate damages is DELETED. specifically. sleepless nights.

638 SCRA 428. [6] Id. December 15. penned by Associate Justice Celia C. No. at 379-380. . 152423. 1193 dated February 10. and Lucas P. 2011. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Martin S. Article VIII of the Constitution. [10] Id. [9] Id.R. [2] Rollo. RENATO C. at 109-146. G. per Special Order o. 438. 76-470 with Annexes A to J inclusive. 2012. at 110-111. 2010. [7] Id. [3] Id. at 252. 1966). Villarama. Jr. [4] Id. [11] Id. Perlas-Bernabe. Coprada. at 148-150. pp. [1] Esmaquel v. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice Associate Justice MARIA LOURDES P. at 382-383. at 382-383. [5] Id. SERENO Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13. [8] Id. at 110. at 249 (Land Purchase Agreement dated August 15. Chief Justice Chairperson TERESITA J. ⃰⃰ In lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. A. it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. Bersamin. CORONA Chief Justice ⃰ Per raffle dated September 7.

at 177. [16] Id. at 281. at 168-172. [44] Id. at 259. Court of Appeals. at 116-121. at 547-548. at 178. Buscas. [33] Id. penned by Judge Mauricio M. at 134. [49] Id. L-45168. [54] Id. [28] Id. at 119-120. [30] The subdivision where the property is located. [22] Id. at 273. [65] Id. G. [29] Id. at 603-604. at 553. at 593-594. [27] Id. [40] Id. [52] Id. [45] Id. [34] Id. 102 SCRA 370. [18] Id. [23] Id. at 177-178. [61] Id. at 590. [39] Id. [31] Id. No. at 185. [13] Id. [37] Id. January 27. at 112. [36] Records. [48] Id. p. [17] Id. pp. Id. at 268.[12] Id. at 175-179. 257. at 283. at 589-590. [56] Id. [32] Id. at 120-122. at 184-185.R. [15] Id. at 125-126. [67] Director of Lands v. at 379-380. [21] Id. at 185. [59] Rollo. at 594-599. [38] Id. 181-185. [35] Id. at 111. at 119-120. at 119. [64] Id. at 143-144. [19] Id. [46] Id. at 170. at 169. [47] Id. at 177. [53] Id. at 600-603. 498 Phil. [26] Id. 176. [20] Id. at 139. [62] Id. [41] Rollo. [55] Id. at 142-143. at 120-121. at 111. Rivera. [51] Id. [43] Id. 443. [14] Id. [58] Spouses Hutchison v. 1981. . 262 (2005). 249. p. [42] Id. at 126-127. at 268. [63] Id. at 258. [57] Id. [66] Id. [25] Id. [60] Id. at 553. [50] Id. [24] Id.

95-97. Sr.[68] Rollo. In all cases. Inc. the attorneys fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. [77] Velez. p. id at 170. [76] Micro Sales Operation Network v. 234 SCRA 78. moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission. [70] The amount alleged in the complaint filed by respondent Barangan. moral shock. [75] Art. No. National Labor Relations Commission. fright. at 133. July 12. cannot be recovered. 322 (2005). 509 Phil. [69] Id. wounded feelings. social humiliation. .R. Moral damages include physical suffering. Direct Examination of respondent Barangan. 1996. pp. v. pp. attorneys fees and expenses of litigation. serious anxiety. G. Demetrio. Rev. v. xxxx (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorneys fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. Though incapable of pecuniary computation. and similar injury. 1. 2217. In the absence of stipulation. 127-128. 9 (2002). other than judicial costs. mental anguish. [73] Art. Court of Appeals. 436 Phil. 170. 4-5. [74] Rollo. 313. 2208. 1994. except: xxxx (2) When the defendants act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. besmirched reputation. [72] TSN dated November 8. [71] Eastern Shipping Lines. 97412.