Title
Castro vs. Auditor General
Case
G.R. No. L-22403
Decision Date
Oct 31, 1968
Heirs of Tirona sought compensation for land taken for a national highway in 1917; SC ruled in their favor, citing lack of recorded conveyance, no prescription for registered lands, and government's duty to compensate.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175343)

Factual Background

The heirs of Daniel T. Tirona sought compensation for two lots totaling 12,045 square meters, which were occupied by the National Government as part of the national highway from Noveleta to Cavite City. These lots, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title No. 1709 and No. 442, were originally registered under Daniel T. Tirona prior to his death in 1939. The heirs maintained current Tax Declarations for the lots and had continued paying real estate taxes, despite the absence of any formal conveyance of the property to the government.

Procedural History

In 1952, the heirs approached the District Engineer regarding compensation for the land occupied by the highway. Although there were negotiations regarding a right of way agreement, no consensus on terms was achieved. The claim was subsequently submitted to the Auditor General in 1960, but it was rejected on the grounds of presumed prior consent for the government's use of the land and the assertion of prescription due to the passage of time without compensation.

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the Auditor General's rejection of the heirs' claim lacked legal foundation. The presumption of regularity in government actions did not apply since the ownership of the land was established under the Torrens system, which requires formal documentation for any conveyance. The absence of a recorded deed of conveyance, whether through sale or donation, substantiated the petitioners' position that the land remained theirs. The Court emphasized that without proper recording, no alteration of title could be legally acknowledged under the Torrens system.

Exception to Prescription

The Court acknowledged that while the prescriptive period would typically bar recovery for claims not pursued within the designated timeframe, an exception exists for cases where the government has taken private property without providing compensation. Citing previous cases (Herrera vs. Auditor General and Alfonso vs. Pasay City), the Court reaffirmed that equity demands that the government must compensate property owners for any expropriation regardless of the timeliness of the claim, particularly when dealing with registered land.

Conclusion and Decision

The Court reject

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.