ROGELIO J. JAKOSALEM and GODOFREDO B.

DULFO Petitioners,

G.R. No. 175025 Present: CORONA, C. J., Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, DEL CASTILLO, PEREZ, and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: February 15, 2012

- versus-

ROBERTO S. BARANGAN, Respondent.

Facts: On August 13, 1966, respondent Col. Roberto S. Barangan (respondent Barangan) entered into a Land Purchase Agreement with Ireneo S. Labsilica of Citadel Realty Corporation whereby respondent Barangan agreed to purchase on installment a 300 square meter parcel of land, located in Antipolo, Rizal. Upon full payment of the purchase price, a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on August 31, 1976 in his favor. Consequently, the old title was cancelled and a new one was issued in his name. Since then, he has been dutifully paying real property taxes for the said property. He was not, however, able to physically occupy the subject property because as a member of the Philippine Air Force, he was often assigned to various stations in the Philippines.

On December 23, 1993, when he was about to retire from the government service, respondent Barangan went to visit his property, where he was planning to build a retirement home. It was only then that he discovered that it was being occupied by petitioner Godofredo Dulfo (petitioner Dulfo) and his family.

On February 4, 1994, respondent Barangan sent a letter to petitioner Dulfo demanding that he and his family vacate the subject property within 30 days. In reply, petitioner Atty. Rogelio J. Jakosalem (petitioner Jakosalem), the son-in-law of petitioner Dulfo, sent a letter claiming ownership over the subject property.

On February 19, 1994, respondent Barangan filed with Barangay San Luis, Antipolo, Rizal, a complaint for Violation of Presidential Decree No. 772 or the Anti-Squatting Law against petitioners. No settlement was reached; hence, the complaint was filed before the Prosecutors Office of Rizal. The case, however, was dismissed because the issue of ownership must first be resolved in a civil action.

On May 28, 1994, respondent Barangan commissioned Geodetic Engineer Lope C. Jonco (Engr. Jonco) of J. Surveying Services to conduct a relocation survey of the subject property based on the technical description appearing on respondent Barangans TCT. The relocation survey revealed that the property occupied by petitioner Dulfo and his family is the same property covered by respondent Barangans title.

On November 17, 1994, respondent Barangan filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession against petitioners Dulfo and Jakosalem with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Antipolo City. Respondent Barangan prayed that petitioners Dulfo and Jakosalem be ordered to vacate the subject property and pay a monthly rental of P3,000.00 for the use and occupancy of the subject property from May 1979 until the time the subject property is vacated, plus moral and exemplary damages and cost of suit.

In their Answer with Counterclaim, petitioners Dulfo and Jakosalem claimed that the subject property was assigned to petitioner Jakosalem by Mr. Nicanor Samson (Samson); that they have been in possession of the subject property since May 8, 1979; and that the property covered by respondent Barangans title is not the property occupied by petitioner Dulfo and his family.

Issues: 1. Whether or not respondent barangan is entitled to possession of the subject property? 2. Whether or not prescription/laches may apply in order for petitioner to retain possession of the subject property?

Ruling 1:

Article 434 of the Civil Code provides that [i]n an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendants claim. In other words, in order to recover possession, a person must prove (1) the identity of the land claimed, and (2) his title.

In this case, respondent Barangan was able to prove the identity of the property and his title. To prove his title to the property, he presented in evidence the following documents: (1) Land Purchase Agreement; (2) Deed of Absolute Sale; (3) and a Torrens title registered under his name. Neither is there any discrepancy between the title number stated in the Land Purchase Agreement and the Deed of Absolute Sale. As correctly found by the CA, the title stated in the Deed of Absolute Sale, is the title stated in the Land Purchase Agreement. Hence, both TCTs pertain to the same property. Ruling 2: Finally, as to the issue of laches and prescription, we agree with the CA that these do not apply in the instant case. Jurisprudence consistently holds that prescription and laches can not apply to registered land covered by the Torrens system because under the Property Registration Decree, no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.