7/25/2019 Property_02 Sps Ragudo v. Fabella Estate

1/1

!"#!$"%& ( !"$)*"+!%+#, - .

SPS RAMON AND ESTRELLA RAGUDO vs. FABELLA ESTATE TENANTS ASSOCIATION

GR NO 146823 09August2005

J Garcia

FACTS

Subject property: 105sqm lot within the Fabella Estate, Mandaluyong

Parties: Ramon and Estrella Ragudo occupant of subject lot; refused to become member of FETA

Fabella Estate Tenants Association (FETA) successor owner of Fabella Estate; complainantDon Dionisio Fabella original owner

Miriam de Guzman awardee of subject lot; member of FETA

FETA was formed by the tenants of the Fabella Estate to acquire the subject estate and distribute to the members. As a condition

to a loan from National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, all tenants were required to become members of the association.

Spouses Ragudo refused to become members. As such, the subject lot was awarded to another qualified member, Miriam de

Guzman, while Sps Ragudo continued to occupy the same.Later on, FETA became the registered owner of the Fabella Estate, with TCT issued in its name by RD Mandaluyong. To effect

ejectment of Sps. Ragudo, FETA filed a complaint for unlawful detainerwith MeTC-Mandaluyong. The MeTC dismissed the

complaint ruling that unlawful detainer was an improper remedy considering that the Sps Ragudo had been occupying the subject

lot for more than one year.

FETA filed a complaint for recovery of possessionwith RTC-Pasig.

Defense of Sps Ragudo:

1. they have already acquired ownership of the lot because they have been in occupation in the concept of an owner for

more than 40 years

2. the title of FETA is fake because the OCT it came from has been previously adjudged null and void by RTC-Pasig

3. FETAs right to recover is barred by laches by virtue of their occupancy of more than 40 years

RTC:ruled in favor of FETA

CA:affirmed RTC decision; ordered Sps Ragudo to pay rent until they vacate; MRwas denied

ISSUE before the Supreme Court:

Whether acquisitive prescriptionand equitable lacheshad set in, i.e. whether the Sps Ragudo have already acquired ownership

over, and consequently the continuous possession of the subject lot, considering that they have been occupying the same for more

than 40 years rendering the right of FETA to recover such barred by laches

HELD/RATIO

NO, Sps Ragudo did not acquire ownership and warranted continuous possession of the subject lot, because title cannot be

acquired by prescription over parcels of land registered under the Torrens System and FETAs right to recover is not barred bylaches because the possession of Sps Ragudo was merely tolerated by FETA.

A claim of acquisitive prescription is baseless when the land involved is a registered land pursuant to Article 1126 of the CC in

relation to Sec 47 of PD 1529.

1126 of CC: prescription of ownership of lands registered under the Land Registration Act shall be

governed by Special laws

Act No 496, now PD 1529: No title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be

acquired by adverse possession.

Accordingly, proof of possession is both immaterial and inconsequential.

With respect to laches:

If claimants possession of the land is merely tolerated by its lawful owner, the right of the lawful owner to recover possession is

never barred by laches.

The lawful owner has a right to eject any person illegally occupying his property and this right is imprescriptible. Even if it be

supposed that the lawful owner was aware of the occupation of the property, and regardless of the length of that possession, the

lawful owner has a right to demand the return of his property at any time as long as the possession was unauthorized or merely

tolerated, if at all. This right is never barred by laches.