Heirs of Nieto v. Municipality of Meycauayan

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 540 07/10/2018, 11)42 PM
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Anacleto B. Nieto vs. Municipality of Meycauayan,
Bulacan
*
G.R. No. 150654. December 13, 2007.
HEIRS OF ANACLETO B. NIETO, namely, SIXTA P.

NIETO, EULALIO P. NIETO, GAUDENCIO P. NIETO,
and CORAZON P. NIETO-IGNACIO, represented by
EULALIO P. NIETO, petitioners, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF
MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, represented by MAYOR
EDUARDO ALARILLA, respondent.
Land Titles and Deeds; Reconveyance; Prescription; An action to

recover possession of a registered land never prescribes.·An action
to recover possession of a registered land never prescribes in view of
the provision of Section 44 of Act No. 496 to the effect that no title
to registered land in derogation of that of a registered owner shall
be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. It follows that an
action by the registered owner to recover a real property registered
under the Torrens System does not prescribe.
Same; Same; Same; The rule on imprescriptibility of registered

lands not only applies to the registered owners but extends to the
heirs of the registered owners as well.·It is well-settled that the
rule on imprescriptibility of registered lands not only applies to the
registered owner but extends to the heirs of the registered owner as
well. Recently in Mateo v. Diaz, 374 SCRA 33 (2002), the Court held
that prescription is unavailing not only against the registered
owner, but also against his hereditary successors because the latter
step into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law and are the
continuation of the personality of their predecessor-in-interest.
Hence, petitioners, as heirs of Anacleto Nieto, the registered owner,
cannot be barred by prescription from claiming the property.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001664f2fa61284c824fc003600fb002c009e/p/AQF028/?username=Guest Page 1 of 13
Same; Same; Laches; Words and Phrases; „Laches,‰ Defined.

·Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by
exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier. It is
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
101
VOL. 540, DECEMBER 13, 2007 101

Bulacan
the presumption that the party entitled to assert his right has
either abandoned or declined to assert it.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Laches cannot be set up to resist the

enforcement of an imprescriptible legal right.·In a number of cases,
the Court has held that an action to recover registered land covered
by the Torrens System may not be barred by laches. Laches cannot
be set up to resist the enforcement of an imprescriptible legal right.
Laches, which is a principle based on equity, may not prevail
against a specific provision of law, because equity, which has been
defined as „justice outside legality,‰ is applied in the absence of and
not against statutory law or rules of procedure. In recent cases,
however, the Court held that while it is true that a Torrens title is
indefeasible and imprescriptible, the registered landowner may lose
his right to recover possession of his registered property by reason
of laches.
Same; Same; Laches; Elements.·Even if we apply the doctrine

of laches to registered lands, it would still not bar petitionersÊ claim.
It should be stressed that laches is not concerned only with the
mere lapse of time. The following elements must be present in order
to constitute laches: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of

one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which
complaint is made for which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2)
delay in asserting the complainantÊs rights, the complainant having
had knowledge or notice, of the defendantÊs conduct and having
been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of
knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the
complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and
(4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is
accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred.
Same; Same; Ejectment; Those who occupy the land of another

at the latterÊs tolerance or permission, without any contract between
them, are necessarily bound by an implied promise that the
occupants will vacate the property upon demand; Upon the refusal to
vacate the property, the ownerÊs cause of action accrues, the unlawful
deprivation or withholding of possession being counted from the date
of the demand to vacate.·This Court has consistently held that
those who occupy the land of another at the latterÊs tolerance or
permission, without any contract between them, are necessarily
bound by an implied promise that the occupants will vacate the
property upon
102

Bulacan
demand. The status of the possessor is analogous to that of a lessee

or tenant whose term of lease has expired but whose occupancy
continues by tolerance of the owner. In such case, the unlawful
deprivation or withholding of possession is to be counted from the
date of the demand to vacate. Upon the refusal to vacate the
property, the ownerÊs cause of action accrues. In this case, the first
element of laches occurred the moment respondent refused to
vacate the property, upon petitioners demand, on February 23,
1994. The filing of the complaint on December 28, 1994, after the
lapse of a period of only ten months, cannot be considered as
unreasonable delay amounting to laches.
Same; Same; Same; Prescription; Laches; If the claimantÊs

possession of the land is merely tolerated by its lawful owner, the
latterÊs right to recover possession is never barred by laches.·Case
law teaches that if the claimantÊs possession of the land is merely
tolerated by its lawful owner, the latterÊs right to recover possession
is never barred by laches. Even if it be supposed that petitioners
were aware of respondentÊs occupation of the property, and
regardless of the length of that possession, the lawful owners have a
right to demand the return of their property at any time as long as
the possession was unauthorized or merely tolerated, if at all.
Same; Laches; Equity; The doctrine of laches cannot be invoked

to defeat justice or to perpetrate fraud and injustice.·The doctrine
of laches cannot be invoked to defeat justice or to perpetrate fraud
and injustice. It is the better rule that courts, under the principle of
equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of
limitations or the doctrine of laches when by doing so, manifest
wrong or injustice would result. Finally, we find that the rentals
being prayed for by petitioners are reasonable considering the size
and location of the subject property. Accordingly, the award of
rentals is warranted.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Esmeraldo M. Gatchalian for petitioners.
Pablo C. Cruz for respondent.
103
VOL. 540, DECEMBER 13, 2007 103

Bulacan
NACHURA, J.:
1
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of
the Court of Appeals, dated October 30, 2001, which
dismissed the petition for review of the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The latter
dismissed a complaint to recover possession of a registered
land on the ground of prescription and laches.

The antecedents are as follows:
Anacleto Nieto was the registered owner of a parcel of
land, consisting of 3,882 square meters, situated at
Poblacion, Meycauayan, Bulacan and covered by TCT No.
T-24.055 (M). The property is being used by respondent,
Municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan, which constructed
an extension of the public market therein.
Upon AnacletoÊs death on July 26, 1993, his wife, Sixta
P. Nieto, and their three children, namely, Eulalio P. Nieto,
Gaudencio Nieto and Corazon Nieto-Ignacio, herein
petitioners, collated all the documents pertaining to his
estate. When petitioners failed to locate the ownerÊs
duplicate copy of TCT No. T-24.055 (M), they filed a
petition for the issuance of a second ownerÊs copy with the
RTC, Malolos, Bulacan. In that case, petitioners discovered
that the missing copy of the title was in the possession of
the respondent. Consequently, petitioners withdrew the
petition and demanded from respondent the return of
property and the certificate of title.
On February 23, 1994, petitioners formally demanded
from respondent the return of the possession and full
control of the property, and payment of a monthly rent with
interest from January 1964.2
Respondent did not comply
with petitionersÊ demand.
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon, with Associate

Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Alicia L. Santos, concurring;
Rollo, pp. 30-39.
2 Records, pp. 70-71.
104

Bulacan
3
On December 28, 1994, petitioners filed a complaint for
recovery of possession and damages against respondent
alleging that the latter was in possession of the ownerÊs
copy of TCT No. T-24.055 (M). They averred that, in 1966,

respondent occupied the subject property by making it
appear that it would expropriate the same. Respondent
then used the land as a public market site and leased the
stalls therein to several persons without paying Anacleto
Nieto the value of the land or rent therefor. Petitioners
prayed that respondent be ordered to surrender to them
the ownerÊs copy of TCT No. T-24.055 (M), vacate the
property, and pay them the rents thereon from 1966 until
the date of the filing of the complaint for the total of
P1,716,000.00, and P10,000.00 a month thereafter, as well
as P300,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as
attorneyÊs fees. 4
In its Answer, respondent alleged that the property was
donated to it and that the action was already time-barred
because 32 years had elapsed since it possessed the
property. Respondent and counsel failed
5
to appear during
the scheduled pre-trial conference. Upon petitionersÊ
motion, respondent was declared as in default and
petitioners were allowed to present evidence ex parte.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which the
RTC granted. Respondent was then allowed to cross-
examine petitionersÊ lone witness and present its own
evidence. However, despite notice, respondent failed again
to appear during the scheduled hearing. Hence, the RTC
considered respondent to have waived its right to cross-
examine petitionersÊ witness and present its own evidence.
The case was then submitted for decision.
On August 1, 1995, the RTC rendered a Decision
dismissing the complaint as well as respondentÊs
counterclaims for damages. For lack of proof, the RTC
disregarded respondentÊs
_______________
3 Id., at pp. 1-4.

4 Records, pp. 32-33.
5 Rollo, p. 24.
105
VOL. 540, DECEMBER 13, 2007 105

Bulacan
claim that Anacleto Nieto donated the property to it in

light of the fact that the title remained in the name of
Anacleto. Nonetheless, the RTC did not rule in favor of
petitioners because of its finding that the case was already
barred by prescription. It held that the imprescriptibility of
actions to recover land covered by the Torrens System could
only be invoked by the registered owner, Anacleto Nieto,
and that the action was also barred by laches.
Petitioners appealed the case to the Court of Appeals
(CA). On October 30, 2001, the CA rendered a Decision
dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. According to the
CA, the petition involved a pure question of law; hence,
petitioners
6
should have filed a petition directly with this
Court.
Accordingly, petitioners elevated the case to this Court
through a petition for review on certiorari, raising the
follow-ing issues:
A. Are lands covered by the Torrens System subject to

prescription?
B. May the defense of [l]aches be invoked in this
specific case?
C. May the defense of imprescriptibility only be
invoked by the registered
7
owner to the exclusion of
his legitimate heirs?
The petition is meritorious.

Respondent argues that the action of petitioner to
recover possession of the property is already barred by
prescription.
We do not agree.
An action to recover possession of a registered land
never prescribes in view of the provision of Section 44 of
Act No. 496 to the effect that no title to registered land in
derogation of that of a registered owner shall be acquired
by prescription or
_______________
6 Id., at pp. 37-38.

7 Id., at p. 11.
106

Bulacan
8
adverse possession. It follows that an action by the
registered owner to recover a real property registered
under the Torrens System does not prescribe.
Despite knowledge of this avowed doctrine, the trial
court ruled that petitionersÊ cause of action had already
prescribed on the ground that the imprescriptibility to
recover lands registered under the Torrens System can only
be invoked by the person under whose name the land is
registered.
Again, we do not agree. It is well-settled that the rule on
imprescriptibility of registered lands not only applies to the
registered owner
9
but extends to the heirs 10of the registered
owner as well. Recently in Mateo v. Diaz, the Court held
that prescription is unavailing not only against the
registered owner, but also against his hereditary successors
because the latter step into the shoes of the decedent by
operation of law and are the continuation of the personality
of their predecessor-in-interest. Hence, petitioners, as heirs
of Anacleto Nieto, the registered owner, cannot be barred
by prescription from claiming the property.
Aside from finding that petitionersÊ cause of action was
barred by prescription, the trial court reinforced its
dismissal of the case by holding that the action was
likewise barred by laches.
Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
which, by exercising due diligence could or should have
been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a
right within a reasonable time, warranting the
presumption that the party entitled to assert
11
his right has
either abandoned or declined to assert it.
_______________
8 Mateo v. Diaz, 424 Phil. 772, 781; 374 SCRA 33, 40 (2002).
9 Mateo v. Diaz, supra, at p. 782; p. 41; Bailon-Casilao v. Court of
Appeals, No. L-78178, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 738, 747.
10 Supra.
11 Isabela Colleges, Inc. v. Heirs of Nieves Tolentino-Rivera, 397 Phil.
955, 969; 344 SCRA 95, 107 (2000).
107
VOL. 540, DECEMBER 13, 2007 107

Bulacan
In a number of cases, the Court has held that an action to

recover registered land covered
12
by the Torrens System may
not be barred by laches. Laches cannot be set up13 to resist
the enforcement of an imprescriptible legal right. Laches,
which is a principle based on equity, may not prevail
against a specific provision of law, because equity, which
has been defined as „justice outside legality,‰ is applied in
the absence14
of and not against statutory law or rules of
procedure. 15
In recent cases, however, the Court held that while it
is true that a Torrens title is indefeasible and
imprescriptible, the registered landowner may lose his
right to recover possession of his registered property by
reason of laches.
Yet, even if we apply the doctrine of laches to registered
lands, it would still not bar petitionersÊ claim. It should be
stressed that 16laches is not concerned only with the mere
lapse of time. The following elements must be present in
order to constitute laches:
_______________
12 Mateo v. Diaz, supra note 8, at p. 781; p. 40; Quevada v. Glorioso,

356 Phil. 105, 119; 294 SCRA 608 (1998); Dablo v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 93365, September 21, 1993, 226 SCRA 618, 628; Bishop v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 86787, May 8, 1992, 208 SCRA 636, 641; Jimenez v.
Fernandez, G.R. No. 46364, April 6, 1990, 184 SCRA 190, 198; Umbay v.
Alecha, 220 Phil. 103, 106; 135 SCRA 427, 429 (1985); J.M. Tuason &
Co., Inc. v. Macalindong, No. L-15398, December 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 938.
13 Heirs of Romana Ingjug-Tiro v. Casals, 415 Phil. 665, 674; 363
SCRA 435, 442 (2001).
14 Mateo v. Diaz, supra note 8, at p. 781; pp. 40-41.
15 De Vera-Cruz v. Miguel, G.R. No. 144103, August 31, 2005, 468
SCRA 506, 518; Heirs of Juan and Ines Panganiban v. Dayrit, G.R. No.
151235, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 370, 379-380; Vda. de Cabrera v. Court
of Appeals, 335 Phil. 19, 34; 267 SCRA 339, 356 (1997).
16 Pineda v. Heirs of Eliseo Guevara, G.R. No. 143188, February 14,
2007, 515 SCRA 627, 635.
108

Bulacan
„(1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one

under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation
of which complaint is made for which the complaint
seeks a remedy;
(2) delay in asserting the complainantÊs rights, the
complainant having had knowledge or notice, of the
defendantÊs conduct and having been afforded an
opportunity to institute a suit;
(3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the
defendant that the complainant would assert the
right on which he bases his suit; and
(4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event
relief is accorded to the
17
complainant, or the suit is
not held to be barred.‰
We note that the certificate of title in the name of Anacleto

Nieto was found in respondentÊs possession but there was
no evidence that ownership of the property was transferred
to the municipality either through a donation or by
expropriation, or that any compensation was paid by
respondent for the use of the property. Anacleto allegedly
surrendered the certificate of title to respondent upon the
belief that the property would be expropriated. Absent any
showing that this certificate of title was fraudulently

obtained by respondent, it can be presumed that Anacleto
voluntarily delivered the same to respondent. AnacletoÊs
delivery of the certificate of title to respondent could,
therefore, be taken to mean acquiescence to respondentÊs
plan to expropriate the property, or a tacit consent to the
use of the property pending its expropriation.
This Court has consistently held that those who occupy
the land of another at the latterÊs tolerance or permission,
without any contract between them, are necessarily bound
by an implied promise that
18
the occupants will vacate the
property upon demand. The status of the possessor is
analogous to that of a lessee or tenant whose term of lease
has expired but
_______________
17 Heirs of Juan and Ines Panganiban v. Dayrit, supra note 15, at p.

382.
18 Macasaet v. Macasaet, G.R. Nos. 154391-92, September 30, 2004,
439 SCRA 625, 635.
109
VOL. 540, DECEMBER 13, 2007 109

Bulacan
whose occupancy continues by tolerance of the owner. In

such case, the unlawful deprivation or withholding of
possession
19
is to be counted from the date of the demand to
vacate. Upon the refusal to vacate the property, the
ownerÊs cause of action accrues.
In this case, the first element of laches occurred the
moment respondent refused to vacate the property, upon
petitioners demand, on February 23, 1994. The filing of the
complaint on December 28, 1994, after the lapse of a period
of only ten months, cannot be considered as unreasonable
delay amounting to laches.
Moreover, case law teaches that if the claimantÊs
possession of the land is merely tolerated by its lawful
owner, the latterÊs right to recover possession is never
barred by laches. Even if it be supposed that petitioners

were aware of respondentÊs occupation of the property, and
regardless of the length of that possession, the lawful
owners have a right to demand the return of their property
at any time as long as the 20
possession was unauthorized or
merely tolerated, if at all.
Furthermore, the doctrine of laches cannot be invoked to
defeat justice or to perpetrate fraud and injustice. It is the
better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will
not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations
or the doctrine of laches 21when by doing so, manifest wrong
or injustice would result.
Finally, we find that the rentals being prayed for by
petitioners are reasonable considering the size and location
of the subject property. Accordingly, the award of rentals is
warranted.
_______________
19 Arcal v. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 813, 825; 285 SCRA 34, 43
(1998).
20 Feliciano v. Zaldivar, G.R. No. 162593, September 26, 2006, 503
SCRA 182, 201.
21 Heirs of Dumaliang v. Serban, G.R. No. 155133, February 21, 2007,
516 SCRA 343, 356.
110

Bulacan
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is

GRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Malolos, Bulacan, dated August 1, 1995, is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Respondent is ORDERED (a) to vacate
and surrender peaceful possession of the property to
petitioners, or pay the reasonable value of the property; (b)
to pay P1,716,000.00 as reasonable compensation for the
use of the property from 1966 until the filing of the
complaint and P10,000.00 monthly rental thereafter until
it vacates the property, with 12% interest from the filing of
the complaint until fully paid; and (c) to return to

petitioners the duplicate copy of TCT No. T-24.055 (M).
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez,

Chico-Nazario and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Petition granted.
Notes.·A partyÊs failure or neglect for an unreasonable

and unexplained length of time to assert his right over a
property warrants a presumption that he has abandoned
his right or declined to assert it. (Cleofas vs. St. Peter
Memorial Park, Inc., 324 SCRA 223 [2000])
It is settled that any person who occupies a land of
another at the latterÊs tolerance or permission, without any
contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied
promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which, a
summary action for ejectment is proper remedy against
him. (Pengson vs. Ocampo, Jr., 360 SCRA 420 [2001])
In an action for unlawful detainer the plaintiff need not
have been in prior physical possession. (Rodil Enterprises,
Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 371 SCRA 79 [2001])
··o0o··
111
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Heirs of Nieto v. Municipality of Meycauayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Nieto v. Municipality of Meycauayan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Nieto v. Municipality of Meycauayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 540 07/10/2018, 11)42 PM

100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

HEIRS OF ANACLETO B. NIETO, namely, SIXTA P.

Land Titles and Deeds; Reconveyance; Prescription; An action to

Same; Same; Same; The rule on imprescriptibility of registered

Same; Same; Laches; Words and Phrases; „Laches,‰ Defined.

VOL. 540, DECEMBER 13, 2007 101

Heirs of Anacleto B. Nieto vs. Municipality of Meycauayan,

Same; Same; Same; Same; Laches cannot be set up to resist the

Same; Same; Laches; Elements.·Even if we apply the doctrine

to constitute laches: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of

Same; Same; Ejectment; Those who occupy the land of another

102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Anacleto B. Nieto vs. Municipality of Meycauayan,

demand. The status of the possessor is analogous to that of a lessee

Same; Same; Same; Prescription; Laches; If the claimantÊs

Same; Laches; Equity; The doctrine of laches cannot be invoked

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

VOL. 540, DECEMBER 13, 2007 103

land on the ground of prescription and laches.

1 Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon, with Associate

104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

copy of TCT No. T-24.055 (M). They averred that, in 1966,

3 Id., at pp. 1-4.

VOL. 540, DECEMBER 13, 2007 105

Heirs of Anacleto B. Nieto vs. Municipality of Meycauayan,

claim that Anacleto Nieto donated the property to it in

A. Are lands covered by the Torrens System subject to

The petition is meritorious.

6 Id., at pp. 37-38.

106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 540, DECEMBER 13, 2007 107

In a number of cases, the Court has held that an action to

12 Mateo v. Diaz, supra note 8, at p. 781; p. 40; Quevada v. Glorioso,

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

„(1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one

We note that the certificate of title in the name of Anacleto

showing that this certificate of title was fraudulently

17 Heirs of Juan and Ines Panganiban v. Dayrit, supra note 15, at p.

VOL. 540, DECEMBER 13, 2007 109

whose occupancy continues by tolerance of the owner. In

barred by laches. Even if it be supposed that petitioners

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is

the complaint until fully paid; and (c) to return to

Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez,

Notes.·A partyÊs failure or neglect for an unreasonable

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like