Case Digest (G.R. No. 112024)
Facts:
Amlayon Ende and Quezon Ende v. Roman Catholic Prelate of the Prelature Nullius of Cotabato, Inc., G.R. No. 191867, December 06, 2021, the Supreme Court Second Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Amlayon and Quezon Ende (substituted after their deaths by their heirs) intervened in Civil Case No. 1069—filed on August 17, 1995 by Amado Ende, Daniel Ende Ano, Felipe Mendoza and Pilar Sunga—seeking quieting of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-46114 and recovery of possession of a 223,877 sqm lot in Sudapin, Kidapawan, Cotabato allegedly owned by spouses Butas Ende and Damagi Arog. Portions of the lot were occupied by respondents including the Roman Catholic Prelate of the Prelature Nullius of Cotabato, Inc., Welhilmina (also spelled Wilhelmina) Generalla, the Diaz family, Jessie and Corazon Flores, and others. Plaintiffs alleged deceitful dispossession and asserted an extrajudicial settlement among heirs; respondents countered with claims of acquisition from Damagi or her vendees and asserted acquisitive prescription and laches.
Petitioners Amlayon and Quezon filed an answer-in-intervention on January 9, 1996, claiming to be the legitimate children and heirs of the spouses Ende and alleging that the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1069 were impostors. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Kidapawan City, rendered a September 3, 2003 Decision dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint but holding that intervenors Amlayon and Quezon proved by preponderance that they were the spouses’ children; the RTC declared most conveyances void (except a limited grant to Welhilmina) and directed several respondents to vacate and deliver possession to the intervenors.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CV No. 00272‑MIN, by Decision dated July 23, 2009 (Lim, J.), reversed the RTC’s favorable finding for the intervenors and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint and the intervenors’ answer‑in‑intervention for lack of cause of action, reasoning that a prior declaration of heirship in a special proceeding was required under earlier doctrine and that laches barred recov...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the equitable ground of laches may prevail over an indefeasible Torrens title.
- Whether laches may be applied in favor of respondents who occupy portions of the registered land in bad faith where the conveyances they rely on are void ab initio.
- Whether laches applies against petitioners Amlayon and Quezon, indigenous, unlettered persons who discovered OCT No. P‑46114 in 1994 ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)