Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, Spouses Sabas Gepalago, G.R. No. 123713, April 1, 1998

Fact:

Both petitioner and respondent claim ownership over a 3,625 sq.m land located at Bohol. Petitioner claims ownership by virtue of inheritance from their father who, during his lifetime took an uninterrupted possession over the land, declared the property for taxation purpose and religiously paid the real estate tax. The respondent claims ownership as registered owner of said lot as a portion of the lot owned by Pedro Luspo who mortgaged his land to PNB and subsequently was foreclosed. The respondents won as the highest bidder and they became the owner of that portion of land. The lower court ruled in favor to the petitioners holding that they were in continuous possession and cultivating the land for more than 30 years. Thus they acquired the land by prescription. Although a Torrens Title is indefeasible and not subject for prescription it is not when the respondents purchased the land from PNB with prior knowledge that the land was in possession of the petitioner’s father. Upon appeal the CA reversed the court ruling and declared the petitioners as the true owners of the property.

Issue: Whether or not a land registered under the Torrens system can prescribe in the instance case.

Held:

The court ruled that the land in dispute has been covered by a Torrens Title more than 30 yrs before the petitioners instituted the present action. Sec. 47 of PD 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree states that no land under the Torrens System be acquired through prescription. Such title is indefeasible. It is wrong to contend that the prior knowledge of the respondents on the possession of the petitioner’s father defies the Torrens title’s inprescriptibility because there is no flaw on the title when they purchased it from PNB that was the registered owner of the land. The vendee for value mainly relies on what appears on the face of the title and is not compelled to go beyond that. Moreover, the petitioner was unusually silent with the previous transactions involving the property when Luspo mortgaged the land to PNB, when it was sold in public auction and the sale of the land to the vendees. The court affirmed the decision of the CA declaring the respondents as the true owners of the land in dispute.