Title
Source: Supreme Court
D.B.T. Mar-Bay Construction, Inc. vs. Panes
Case
G.R. No. 167232
Decision Date
Jul 31, 2009
Dispute over Lot Psu-123169 in Quezon City: DBT claims ownership via *dacion en pago*, respondents allege fraud & seek quieting of title. SC favors DBT, upholding Torrens system & innocence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 167232)

Applicable Law

The legal principles involved are grounded in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically related to property rights, land registration, and the effects of prescription and laches under the Civil Code and The Property Registration Decree.

Case Background

The subject property consists of 240,146 square meters, established under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 200519, originally granted to B.C. Regalado & Co. in 1974. The property was transferred to D.B.T. Mar-Bay Construction via a dacion en pago. Respondents filed a complaint for quieting of title and cancellation of TCT No. 200519, asserting ownership based on continuous possession since before World War II.

Allegations of Ownership

Respondents claimed their lawful ownership based on continuous possession and a declaration for tax purposes. They argued that the original title relied upon by the petitioner to convey the property was fundamentally flawed and that their ownership rights were supported by a certification from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

RTC Decision

Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the respondents, recognizing their long-standing possession and holding that TCT No. 200519 and all titles derived from it were null and void concerning the subject property. The RTC concluded that Ricaredo Panes had a legitimate claim over the land.

Subsequent Developments

D.B.T. Mar-Bay Construction filed a motion for reconsideration, contesting the court's findings regarding prescription and laches, and asserting its ownership rights under TCT No. 200519. The RTC's initial judgment was overturned by the same court upon a subsequent motion, which argued that no title to registered land could be acquired through adverse possession.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals (CA) later reinstated the original RTC decision, emphasizing the discrepancies in the area covered by TCT No. 200519 and highlighting procedural infractions in the prior judgment. The CA underscored the necessity of upholding the integrity of the land title system and the rights derived from it.

Legal Issues Raised

The legal questions revolve around:

  1. Whether the RTC correctly upheld the defenses of prescription and laches in its reconsideration.
  2. Determining which party has superior rights to the subject property.

Supreme Court's Findings

The Supreme Court affirmed that the RTC had erred in acknowledging defenses pertaining to prescription and laches because the nature of the a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.