G.R. No. 84051 - Bergado vs. Court of Appeals

The petitioners argue that the Republic of the Philippines is barred from asserting defenses of prescription and laches because these were not included in the answer or raised during the pretrial conference.
The court has the authority to dismiss an action on the grounds of prescription even if these defenses were not previously asserted, provided that the facts demonstrating the lapse of the prescriptive period are evident in the record.
The trial court's consideration of the issue of prescription was deemed appropriate in determining the claims of the parties involved.

An action for the recovery of title or possession of real property must be initiated within ten years from the accrual of the cause of action.
In this case, the cause of action arose in 1947 when the property was sold to the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) or at the latest between 1960 and 1966 when an adobe wall was constructed.
The petitioners' complaint filed in 1981 was time-barred, as the ten-year prescriptive period had elapsed.

The principles regarding the imprescriptibility of titles under the Torrens system and the preference for the first registered buyer do not apply here.
The petitioners registered only the Escritura de Compraventa in 1964, which did not convey full ownership as the vendor was not the registered owner.
The petitioners failed to take possession of the property and allowed the PTA and later the Republic to occupy it without protest until 1981.

Marciana Trinidad, as the sole heir, inherited the property and executed an affidavit of adjudication, affirming her ownership by succession.
However, this affidavit was necessary for the registration of the property in the names of her vendees, and without it, a transfer certificate of title could not be issued.
The original registered owners remained Alejandro Trinidad and Aniceta Soriano, and the petitioners did not have a valid title to the property.

The petitioners' parents did not take immediate possession of the property after the sale in 1928, nor did the petitioners after their parents' death.
The claim that they were ousted in 1979 is contradicted by evidence of existing structures on the property.
The petitioners did not demonstrate payment of realty taxes during their alleged occupation, while the PTA had taken possession immediately after the sale.

If the petitioners have any recourse, it is not against the Republic of the Philippines but rather against Marciana Trinidad, who sold the same land to different purchasers.
The petitioners' claims are thus directed towards the vendor rather than the current possessor of the property.

The Escritura de Compraventa cannot be considered an affidavit of adjudication due to non-compliance with publication requirements.
The deed of sale did not require publication, and the presumption of regularity does not apply to it.
Th...continue reading