CASE DIGEST : WENCESLAO EBANCUEL v. ROMULO ACIERTO GR 214540 GAERLAN

 

[ GR No. 214540, Jul 28, 2021 ]

WENCESLAO EBANCUEL v. ROMULO ACIERTO

FACTS : Buenaventura Ebancuel owned a two-hectare land in Masinloc, Zambales, covered by Title No. 97. After his death in 1948, his son Wenceslao, unaware of the property, later discovered it in 1974, paid the taxes, and found several occupants on it in 1981. His initial 1984 recovery case was dismissed for lack of prosecution, and he refiled in 1997. The respondents claimed they bought the land from Buenaventura or his predecessors in the 1940s and had possessed it for over 30 years. After Wenceslao’s death, his widow and children continued the case. Both the RTC and CA dismissed the suit, ruling that Wenceslao’s claim was barred by laches, as he delayed asserting his rights for decades without justifiable reason.

ISSUE : WON the Respondents  is entitled to possession of the subject property

HELD : The Supreme Court ruled that the registered owner’s right to recover possession of property is imprescriptible and not barred by laches, affirming that possession based merely on tolerance or unauthorized occupation cannot defeat a Torrens title. In this case, Wenceslao, who inherited the property from his father and later transferred it to Adoracion, acted within reason by asserting his rights after discovering the respondents’ illegal occupation. His delay was justified by circumstances such as childhood displacement and financial hardship, showing no abandonment of rights. The Court stressed that laches cannot override a statutory right under the Torrens system, which protects registered land from claims based on prescription or adverse possession. Meanwhile, the respondents failed to prove ownership, presenting no valid deeds of sale, unregistered transactions, and inconsistent tax declarations, which hold little evidentiary value. The Court concluded that the petitioners’ Torrens title and documentary evidence outweighed the respondents’ unsubstantiated claims, confirming that the latter were mere intruders without possessory rights over the property.