3/10/2017 G.R.No.

L47491

TodayisFriday,March10,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION.

G.R.No.L47491May4,1989

GALICANOGOLLOY,petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALS,JOSEVALDEZ,JR.,CONSOLACIONVALDEZ,LOURDESVALDEZ,
SOLEDADVALDEZandBENNYMADRIAGA,respondents.respondents.respondents..

CrispuloB.Ducusinforpetitioner.CelsoM.Alviarforprivaterespondents..

PARAS,J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the September 29, 1977 Decision ** of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. No. L
43359R, entitled, Galicano Golloy vs. Jose J. Valdez Jr., et. al., affirming the judgment of the then Court of First Instance of Tarlac and the November
29,1977Resolutionofthesamecourtdenyingthemotionforreconsideration..

Hereinpetitioner,formorethantwenty(20)years,hasbeentheregisteredownerandinpossessionofa41,545
squaremeterparceloflandcoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.45764.TheSouthwestportionofthisland
is bounded by herein private respondents' land which is covered by Certificate of Title No. 8565. Sometime in
February, 1966, private respondents subdivided their land among themselves. In the course of the subdivision,
private respondents caused to be placed two (2) monuments inside the Southwest, portion of petitioner's land.
Hence,petitionerfiledwiththethenCourtofFirstInstanceofTarlac,presidedoverbyJudgeArturoB.Santosan
actiontoquiettitle.ThesamewasdocketedthereinasCivilCaseNo.4312..

Privaterespondents,intheirfiledmotiontodismisswithcounterclaim,allegedthattheyneverencroachedupon
thelandholdingofpetitionerandnothinghasbeenplacedonhislandwhichwouldcreateanycloudthereonand
thatthetruthofthematterwasthattheymerelysubdividedtheirownlandaccordingtotheirtitleandtherefore
therewasnothingforpetitionertoquietorremovecloudonhistitle..

In the pretrial of December 12, 1967, the parties agreed that inasmuch as the only issue in dispute referred
ultimatelytothequestionoftheboundariesoftheirrespectivelots,thesamemightberesolvedbyappointinga
publicsurveyoroftheBureauofLandstorelocatethedisputedareawiththeendinviewofdeterminingthetrue
andcorrectboundariesoftheirparcels..

Thetrialcourt,inlinewiththeabovesaidagreement,inanOrderdatedDecember13,1968,orderedtheDirector
ofLandstoappointanimpartialpubliclandsurveyortoconducttherelocationsurveyonthedisputedarea..

OnMay20,1968,JovinoB.Dauz,SurveyoroftheBureauofLands,DagupanCity,submittedhisReport(Record
on Appeal, pp. 2128, Rollo, p. 34), which states in substance, that petitioner's land is Lot A of the Subdivision
plan,Psd1413,beingaportionofthelanddescribedinOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.126inthenameofAgustin
Golloy (No. 11, Record on Appeal, p. 23) that the land titled under OCT No. 126 was surveyed on March 18,
1918 and subsequently titled and registered on August 15, 1919 (No. 12, Ibid) that on the other hand, private
respondents' land is Lot No. 1, 118218 in the name of Domingo Balanga, surveyed on March 11, 1913 and
originallytitledandregisteredonMarch1,1918(No.15,Ibid.)thatthereareoverlappingsontheboundariesof
thetwo(2)lands(Nos.226,27,28and29,Ibid.)andthattheoverlappingsareduetothedefectinthesurveyon
petitioner'slandsinceitdidnotdulyconformwiththepreviouslyapprovedsurveyofLot1,113218underOCT
8565(No.25,lbid).Heendedhisreportbysubmittingthatprivaterespondents'land,TCTNo.8565,prevailsover
petitioner'sland,TCTNo.45764,sincetheformerwassurveyedandtitledahead..

OnJuly8,1968,petitionerfiledaMemorandum(RecordonAppeal,pp.2835)..

On October 21, 1968, the trial court ruled in favor of private respondents. The decretal portion of the decision,
reads:.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/may1989/gr_l47491_1989.html 1/3
3/10/2017 G.R.No.L47491

WHEREFORE,conformablytotheagreementofthepartiesduringthepretrialonDecember12,1967,thisCourt
rendersjudgmentinaccordancewiththeaforesaidsurveyor'sReportandRelocationPlanandtheplaintiffand
thedefendantsareaccordinglydirectedtoabidebyandrespecttheboundariesindicatedontherelocationplan
ofSurveyorDauzwhichhefoundtobethetrueandcorrectboundariesofthepropertiescoveredbyTCTNos.
8567and45764ofthelandrecordsofTarlac..

Forlackofproof,theclaimfordamagesbyplaintiffandthedefendantsarebothdenied..

Nopronouncementoncosts..

SOORDERED.(Rollo,p.14).

Petitioner, after his motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court, appealed the said decision, which
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, in a Decision promulgated on September 29, 1977 (Rollo, pp. 2229). A
motion for reconsideration was filed, but the same was denied in a Resolution promulgated on November 29,
1977(Ibid.,pp.3032).Hence,theinstantpetition..

TheSecondDivisionofthisCourt,inaResolutiondatedJanuary4,1978,resolvedtorequiretherespondentsto
comment(lbid.,p.36)whichcommentwasfiledonFebruary14,1978(Ibid.,pp.4142).Petitionersfiledareply
theretoonMarch27,1978(lbid.,p.47)incompliancewiththeresolutionofFebruary14,1978(Ibid.,p.44)..

InaResolutiondatedApril5,1978theCourtgaveduecoursetothepetition(Ibid.,p.52).PetitionerfiledhisBrief
onJanuary10,1981(Ibid.,p.60).Privaterespondentshavingfailedtofiletheirbriefwithintherequiredperiod,
thecasewasconsideredsubmittedfordecisionwithoutprivaterespondents'briefintheresolutionofFebruary8,
1981(Ibid.,p.66)..

Thesoleissueinthiscaseiswhobetweenthetwotitleholdersisentitledtothelandindispute?.

Theinstantpetitionisimpressedwithmerit..

Itmustbestatedthatprivaterespondentsandtheirpredecessororpredecessorsneverpossessed,muchless,
claimed the overlapped portions. Petitioner has been always in possession of the same in the concept of an
owner, and his possession was disturbed only in February, 1966, when the private respondents caused to be
placed two (2) monuments inside his land. It will be recalled that, as per report of Surveyor Jovino B. Dauz
(Record on Appeal, pp. 2128), private respondents' land (TCT8565 is Lot No. 1, 11 8218) was surveyed on
March11,1913andoriginallytitledandregisteredonMarch1,1918inthenameofDomingaBalanga.Onthe
otherhand,petitioner'sland(TCTNo.45764)isLotAofSubdivisionplan,Psd14013,aportionoflanddescribed
inOCTNo.126)wassurveyedonMarch18,1918andsubsequentlytitledandregisteredinthenameofAgustin
Golloy. The said lands, having been surveyed and thereafter registered, it follows that monuments were placed
therein to indicate their respective boundaries. It is hardly persuasive that private respondents' predecessor,
DomingaBalanga,believingthatshehasarightfulclaimtotheoverlappedportions,didnotmakeanymoveto
questiontheplacementofthemonuments.Shecouldhaveeasilyobjectedtotheplacementandpointedoutthat
the placement of the monuments excluded the overlapped portions from her property. However, no such
objection was made. These facts could only be construed to mean that private respondents' predecessor,
DomingaBalanga,neverbelievedthatshehasarightandlegalclaimtotheoverlappedportion.Thereappearsto
benoevidencetosupportclaimsofrepeateddemandsagainstpetitionertorefrainfromcultivatingthecontested
portion,muchlessanactionfiledincourttoenforcesuchdemands..

Besides,consideringthatpetitionerandhispredecessororpredecessorshavebeenincontinuouspossessionin
theconceptofanowner,foralmostfifty(50)years(fromAugust15,1919,whenthepropertywasregistered,up
to February, 1966, when the private respondents caused the placement of two (2) monuments inside his land),
thelatteriftheyhaveanyrightatalltotheoverlappedportion,areguiltyoflaches..

InthecaseofCaragayLaynovs.CourtofAppeals(133SCRA718,723724[1984],thisCourtstated.

Ofsignificanceisthefact,asdisclosedbytheevidence,thatfortwenty(20)yearsfromthedateofregistrationof
titlein1947upto1967whenthissuitforrecoveryofpossessionwasinstituted,neitherthedeceasedDEVERA
up to the time of his death in 1951, nor his successorsininterest, had taken steps to possess or lay adverse
claimtothedisputedportion.Theymay,thereforebesaidtobeguiltyoflachesaswouldeffectivelyderailtheir
cause of action. Administrator ESTRADA took interest in recovering the said portion only when he noticed the
discrepancyinareasintheInventoryofPropertyandinthetitle..

The foregoing conclusion does not necessarily wreak havoc on the indefeasibility of a Torrens title. For, mere
possessionofcertificateoftitleundertheTorrensSystemisnotconclusiveastotheholder'strueownershipofall
the property described therein for he does not by virtue of said certificate alone become the owner of the land
illegallyincluded.Inamorerecentcase,thecaseofLolavs.CourtofAppeals(145SCRA439,449[1986]),this
Courtruled:.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/may1989/gr_l47491_1989.html 2/3
3/10/2017 G.R.No.L47491

Wealsoagreewiththepetitionersthatlacheseffectivelybarstherespondentfromrecoveringthelotindispute..

Althoughthedefenseofprescriptionisunavailingtothepetitionersbecause,admittedly,thetitletoLotNo.5517
isstillregisteredinthenameofrespondent,stillthepetitionershaveacquiredtitletoitbyvirtueoftheequitable
principleoflachesduetorespondent'sfailuretoassertherclaimsandownershipforthirtytwo(32)years..

Thereareprecedentsforthisruling.Inthefollowingcases,weupheldtheequitabledefenseoflachesandruled
thatthelonginactionanddelayofthetitleholderinassertingsrightoverthedisputedlotbarshimfromrecovering
thesame..

PREMISESCONSIDERED,thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsunderreviewisREVERSEDandSETASIDEand
a new one rendered ordering, private respondents to cause the segregation of the disputed portion presently
occupiedbythepetitionerGalicanoGolloyandreconveythesametothelatterandafterthesegregationtoorder
theRegisterofDeedsofTarlactoissueanewcertificateoftitlecoveringsaidportioninfavorofthepetitioner..

SOORDERED..

Padilla,SarmientoandRegalado,JJ.,concur..

MelencioHerrera,J.,tooknopart.

Footnotes

**TenthDivisionPennedbyJusticeSimeonM.GopengcoandconcurredbyJusticeAmeurfina
MelencioHerreraandVicenteG.Ericta.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/may1989/gr_l47491_1989.html 3/3