Title
Vda. de Cabrera vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 108547
Decision Date
Feb 3, 1997
A dispute over land ownership arose when a co-owner sold a portion without consent. The Supreme Court ruled the sale void, upheld the plaintiff's title, and rejected laches, affirming possession alone does not confer ownership.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 108547)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioners: Felicidad Vda. de Cabrera, Marykane Cabrera, and Felicidad Teokemian
Respondent: Virgilia Orais de Felicio (represented by attorney-in-fact Ernesto M. Orais) and the Court of Appeals

Key Dates

– January 16, 1950: Deed of Sale by Daniel and Albertana Teokemian to Andres Orais (Felicidad’s name printed but unsigned)
– January 26, 1950: Survey of Lot No. 2239 in Virgilia’s name
– June 24, 1957: Free Patent and Torrens Title issued to Virgilia
– July 27, 1972: Albertana Teokemian’s Deed of Absolute Sale to Elano and Felicidad Cabrera of a defined portion
– February 11, 1988: Virgilia’s suit for quieting of title and damages filed
– April 27, 1989: RTC judgment favoring petitioners on laches
– January 7, 1993: Court of Appeals decision reversing RTC
– February 3, 1997: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

1987 Constitution; Civil Code provisions on implied trust (Art. 1456), co-ownership (Arts. 493–494); principles on Torrens indefeasibility, prescription, and equitable laches.

Factual Background

Three Teokemian siblings inherited unregistered land. Daniel and Albertana sold the entire parcel in 1950 without Felicidad’s signature. Despite this flaw, plaintiff’s predecessor secured Torrens registration. In 1972 Albertana purported to sell an eastern portion (55,510 sqm) to the Cabreras, who occupied the western portion. Plaintiff only asserted her registered title in 1988.

Procedural History

RTC (1989): Dismissed plaintiff’s quieting action, applying laches to bar recovery by Virgilia, and granted reconveyance to petitioners for the precisely occupied portion.
CA (1993): Found the 1972 sale void for lack of co-owner consent but held petitioners’ reconveyance action barred by prescription; rejected laches as only 14 years elapsed. Reversed RTC.
SC (1997): Granted petitioners’ certiorari, reinstating RTC.

Issue

Whether petitioners’ implied-trust reconveyance defense was barred by prescription or laches, and whether plaintiff’s quieting-action is maintainable despite Torrens indefeasibility principles.

Court of Appeals’ Conclusion

  1. 1972 Deed was void as Albertana lacked authority over Felicidad’s undivided one-third, so petitioners held no title.
  2. Petitioners’ reconveyance remedy prescribed after ten years from registration.
  3. Plaintiff’s suit was timely (14 years since knowledge), and laches did not apply due to shorter delay.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

– Torrens indefeasibility does not protect a title obtained by fraud or notice of defect; plaintiff held Felicidad’s share in implied trust (Art. 1456).
– Petitioners, in actual possession, may defend via reconveyance indefinitely unless clear repudiation ousted


...continue reading

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