G.R. No. 107624 - Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 107624)

Factual Background

The subject properties were originally part of Lot No. 933, owned by Ismael D. Rosales, Pantaleon Cabrera, and Francisco Racaza. In 1938, the Commonwealth of the Philippines initiated an expropriation proceeding (Civil Case No. 781) covering Lot No. 933 and other parcels for military use under the National Defense Act. A deposit of P9,500 was made as a pre-condition for entry, and by a 1940 judgment, the parcels were condemned and the just compensation fixed. However, no formal transfer of title to the government or annotation on the titles followed, despite subdivision and issuance of new titles, including those acquired by the defendant-appellee (SRRDC’s predecessors). Construction began on the subject lots by the defendant in 1995.

Procedural History

SRRDC filed a case in 1996 to declare TCT Nos. 128197 and 128198 null and void, asserting ownership by virtue of the expropriation. The defendant claimed to be a buyer in good faith and contested the validity of the expropriation on grounds that no legislative approval was obtained, payment of just compensation was not made, and possession was never taken by the Republic. The RTC ruled in favor of SRRDC, dismissing the Republic’s complaint due to failure to pay just compensation and lack of evidence of ownership transfer. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, holding that the expropriation became final and binding as no appeal was perfected. It also ruled that laches and estoppel could not affect the Republic’s claim. The Supreme Court was then petitioned to review the CA decision.

Issues for Resolution

Whether there was a valid and complete expropriation of the properties including Lot No. 933.
Whether the Court of First Instance’s (CFI) Decision in Civil Case No. 781 became final and binding.
Whether just compensation was fully paid.
Whether the Republic lost claim by laches due to prolonged inaction.
Whether SRRDC qualifies as a buyer in good faith and innocent purchaser for value.
Effect of recent legislation (Republic Act No. 9443) on the validity of titles.

Validity and Finality of Expropriation

The CA held that since the original owners of Lot No. 933 did not perfect an appeal, the expropriation decision became final and unassailable. However, this was contradicted by the Republic’s own allegation that an Exception and Notice of Intention to Appeal was filed on July 9, 1940, by the original owners, which delayed finality. The Supreme Court ruled that the CA’s failure to reconcile this contradiction undermined its ruling. Furthermore, previous relevant cases cited by the Republic did not involve Lot No. 933 specifically, thus their applicability was limited.

Payment of Just Compensation

The Republic claimed to have disbursed the initial deposit to the owners, but records were destroyed during World War II, making proof impossible. The Court rejected mere presumption of payment, emphasizing that under the law, transfer of ownership by expropriation requires full payment of just compensation. The absence of evidence on actual payment, annotation of any government lien, or registration of title in favor of the Republic evidences incomplete and invalid expropriation. This aligns with prior rulings that no land can be taken without payment, and failure thereof renders the taking ineffectual.

Registration and Annotation Requirements

Under Section 88 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act) and Section 251 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was imperative for the government to register its interest or annotate the title after expropriation. The Republic’s failure to comply with these registration requirements, for a period exceeding 56 years, significantly weakened its claim. The Torrens system presumes the accuracy and indefeasibility of certificates of title, protecting bona fide purchasers and registered owners.

Laches and Estoppel Against the Government

Generally, the government is immune from laches or estoppel, but this immunity is not absolute when inaction would defeat public policy, such as the Torrens system’s sanctity. The Court ruled that the Republic’s prolonged and unexplained neglect to assert its rights and register its claims over decades constitutes laches, notwithstanding the purported initial filing of an appeal by the original owners. Evidence of surveys confirming that Lot No. 933 remained registered to private owners, with government officials recommending legal action that was not pursued, indicates unjustifiable inaction.

Good Faith and Innocent Purchaser Status of SRRDC

SRRDC was found to be an innocent purchaser for value, having acquired the subject parcels in good faith, relying on the Torrens titles free of any liens or annotations of government claims. There was no evidence that SRRDC had knowledge or notice of any adverse claim by the Republic. The Court emphasized that every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the certificate of title, and that the rights of innocent purchasers are protected under the Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529), specifically Section 32, which bars reopening of registration after one year except in cases of actual fraud.

Effect of Republic Act No. 9443

RA No. 9443, enacted after the events and proceedings, confirms and declares the validity of existing Transfer Certificates of Title covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate, including the subject lots. It binds all persons, including the national government, effectively legitimizing and quieting titles like those held by SRRDC. This legislative act further solidifies SRRDC’s ownership and extinguishes the government's claim over the said titles, except when fraud is proven.

Supreme Court’s Holding and Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court reversed the CA ruling, reinstating the RTC decision that upheld SRRDC’s ownership. The Court ruled in favor of

...

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 107624)

Background and Procedural History

This case concerns a petition for review on certiorari filed by San Roque Realty and Development Corporation (SRRDC) challenging the Court of Appeals (CA) decision that ordered the cancellation of SRRDC’s Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 128197 and 128198.
The subject parcels of land are located in Lahug, Cebu City, formerly part of Lot No. 933 covered by TCT No. 11946.
Originally, Lot No. 933 was owned by Ismael D. Rosales, Pantaleon Cabrera, and Francisco Racaza.
In 1938, the Commonwealth of the Philippines initiated expropriation proceedings (Civil Case No. 781) involving these parcels along with others, for military reservation purposes.
A final decision condemning the subject parcels was rendered on May 14, 1940, but no transfer of titles to the government or registration thereof ensued.
Subsequent subdivision of the land led to issuance of new titles, including those acquired by SRRDC, who developed the properties starting in 1995.
The Republic filed suit in 1996 claiming ownership by virtue of the expropriation, asserting that the existing TCTs issued to SRRDC were null and void.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of SRRDC, affirming ownership based on possession and valid titles.
The CA reversed the RTC, holding that the expropriation was valid and final because the original owners did not perfect their appeal, binding SRRDC.
SRRDC appealed to the Supreme Court asserting errors in the CA decision.

Facts and Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff (Republic) claims absolute ownership of Lot No. 933 by virtue of the 1938 expropriation; it alleges use of the property for military purposes and reliance on the judgment of condemnation.
The Republic presented evidence including an initial deposit of P9,500 ordered by the trial court and claimed to have been fully disbursed to landowners, although records were lost due to WWII destruction.
Defendant (SRRDC) claims to be a buyer in good faith, relying on Torrens System titles and argues that no valid expropriation was consummated due to lack of legislative approval, absence of actual possession or payment of just compensation by the Republic.
SRRDC contends that the Republic’s failure to annotate or register the expropriation on titles for over five decades evidences abandonment and laches.
SRRDC also highlights its continuous open possession since 1930, payment of real estate taxes, and substantial investments in development.
The Republic argued that the CA’s ruling in Valdehueza v. Republic supports its claim and that the properties remained devoted to public use.
The CA emphasized the finality of the expropriation decision due to lack of perfected appeal, rejecting laches and estoppel arguments against the Republic.

Issues Presented

Whether the expropriation proceeding over Lot No. 933 was valid, complete, and final.
Whether full payment of just compensation for the expropriated properties was made by the Republic.
Whether the Republic’s failure to register its ownership or annotate the expropriation lien on the TCTs for over 56 years constitutes laches barring its claim.
Whether SRRDC qualifies as a buyer in good faith and innocent purchaser under the Torrens System, thus protecting its title.

Supreme Court’s Analysis – Validity and Finality of Expropriation

The CA erred in holding the expropriation final due to perceived failure by original owners to perfect appeal; the Republic itself presented an Exception and Notice of Intention to Appeal filed by original owners in 1940.
The contradictory positions of the Republic regarding the finality of the expropriation undercut the CA’s ruling.
Previous Supreme Court rulings such as Valdehueza and Republic v. Lim distinguished and clarified that finality of expropriation and consequent loss of ownership depend on procedural regularity and payment of just compensation.