Title
Llenares vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 98709
Decision Date
May 13, 1993
Petitioner Magdalena Llenares sought to recover land ownership against Apolinar Zabella. SC ruled in her favor, upholding her Torrens title, barring Zabella’s adverse claim due to res judicata and rejecting prescription or laches arguments.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 98709)

Facts:

Magdalena Llenares v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Apolinar Zabella, G.R. No. 98709, May 13, 1993, Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.

Petitioner Magdalena Llenares (plaintiff in the trial court) sued private respondent Apolinar Zabella for recovery of possession, quieting of title and cancellation of an adverse claim annotated in Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 28170. Petitioner alleged she was dispossessed in 1976 and that Zabella had caused an affidavit of adverse claim to be annotated on 17 February 1977. The case was filed on 12 July 1977.

The dispute arose from earlier cadastral proceedings that adjudicated Lot No. 5015 in equal shares to Juan Zabella and Anastacio Llenares, with Decree No. 54398 and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 43073 issued on 28 July 1937. Anastacio died in 1931, leaving petitioner as his sole heir; Juan died in 1952, his share subsequently adjudicated among his heirs and later subdivided. Petitioner executed an affidavit of self-adjudication on 22 June 1976 covering Anastacio’s one-half share; on 26 August 1976 OCT No. 43073 was cancelled and TCT No. T-27166 issued, and later subdivision led to issuance of TCT No. 28170 in petitioner’s name for Lot No. 5015-A. Private respondent claimed title by virtue of a 1929 deed of sale from Anastacio to Ariston Zabella (his predecessor-in-interest) and asserted long possession and payment of irrigation charges since 1960.

Branch 57, Regional Trial Court (Lucena City) limited the issues to whether private respondent had acquired ownership by prescription and whether petitioner’s action was barred by laches. The RTC found for petitioner, holding that the registered title and the cadastral decree were conclusive, that defendant’s evidence failed to prove possession in the concept of owner, and that laches was not pleaded nor established; the RTC ordered possession restored to petitioner, accounting, cancellation of the adverse claim annotation, and fees (trial court decision dated April 4, 1986, dispositive portion reproduced in the record).

Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (Seventh Division) in CA-G.R. CV No. 09853. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC in a decision promulgated 24 April 1991, declaring defendant-appellant Apolinar Zabella the true owner of the 12,501 sq. m. covered by TCT No. T-28170, ordering petitioner to execute conveyance (or in default the Register of Deeds to cancel and reissue title), and awarding P10,000 attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals gave weight to alleged long delay by petitioner in asserting rights, the tax records, and re...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • Whether the 1929 deed of sale, not filed or registered in the cadastral proceedings, may deprive an adjudicated and declared owner of possession and improvements.
  • Whether a party whose title vested by a final judgment in cadastral proceedings is barred from asserting subsequent claims by the principle of res judicata.
  • Whether property covered by Torrens title can be acquired by pr...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.