G.R. No. L-26348 - MARCH 1988 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-26348March 30, 1988Trinidad Gabriel, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-33492March 30, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Efren Mercado G.R. No. L-34672March 30,1988United Church Board vs. Alejandro E. Sebastian G.R. No. L-45770March 30, 1988Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-49536March 30, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Felix Resayaga, et al. G.R. No. L-50320March 30, 1988Philippine Apparel vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-50884March 30, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Filomeno Salufrania G.R. No. L-59913March 30, 1988National Housing Authority vs. Manuel E. Valenzuela, et al. G.R. No. L-76185March 30, 1988Warren Manufacturing Workers Union vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-32339March 29, 1988Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. vs. Jose T. Ramos, et al, G.R. No. L-34492March 28, 1988Miguel L. Guerrero vs. Hon. Augusto M. Amores G.R. No. L-34568March 28, 1988Roderick Daoang, et al. vs. Municipal Judge, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, et al. G.R. No. L-35696March 28, 1988Arsenio Ofrecio, et al, vs. Tomas Lising, et al, G.R. No. L-38569March 28, 1988B.F. Goodrich Philippines Inc. vs. Workmens Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-39810March 28, 1988Carlos Lloraña, et al. vs. Tomas Leonidas, et al. G.R. No. L-47203March 28, 1988Lucio Mutia, et al, vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. L-73451March 28, 1988Juanita Yap Say, et al, vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al, G.R. No. L-74799March 28, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Vivencio D. Tuazon G.R. No. L-74992March 28, 1988Luisa Valdez, et al, vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al, G.R. No. L-77049March 28, 1988Manuel B. Osias vs. Jaime N. Ferrer G.R. No. L-30240March 25, 1988Republic of the Philippines vs. Jaime De Los Angeles G.R. No. L-31245March 25, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Claro Laureta, Jr. G.R. No. L-41970March 25, 1988Cenon Medelo vs. Hon. Nathanael M. Gorospe G.R. No. L-44587March 25, 1988Amado Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-45772March 25, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Montenegro, et al, G.R. No. L-51777March 25, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo B. Mustacisa G.R. No. L-52008March 25, 1988Leonor Guzman Castillo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-57268March 25, 1988Manila Midtown Commercial Corporation vs. Nuwhrain, et al, G.R. No. L-71122March 25, 1988Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Arnoldus Carpentry Shop, Inc. et al. G.R. No. L-73534March 25, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Federico Rosario G.R. No. L-73564March 25, 1988Cornelia Clanor Vda. De Portugal, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-74211March 25, 1988P.E. Domingo & Company, Inc., et al. vs. Remigio E. Zari, et al. G.R. No. L-74331March 25, 1988Republic of the Philippines vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al, G.R. No. L-75390March 25, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Valdez G.R. No. L-77850-51March 25, 1988Juan Lopez Dungog vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-78671March 25, 1988Tirzo Vintola vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America G.R. No. L-82082March 25, 1988Insular Bank of Asia and America vs. Spouses Epifania Salazar, et al. G.R. No. L-35506March 21, 1988Christofer Tejones vs. Leopoldo B. Gironella, et al. G.R. No. L-45785March 21, 1988Eduardo Laginlin vs. Workmen's Compensation Comm., et al, G.R. No. L-63155March 21, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Castulo Corecor G.R. No. L-71413March 21, 1988D. M. Consunji, Inc. vs. Severo M. Pucan, et al. G.R. No. L-72335-39March 21, 1988Francisco S. Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, et al, G.R. No. L-73380March 21, 1988Marte Saclolo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-80879March 21, 1988Honorio Saavedra, Jr. vs. Securities & Exchange Commission A.M. No. R-66-RTJMarch 18, 1988Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation vs. Dionisio M. Capistrano G.R. No. L-33924March 18, 1988Maria Balais vs. Buenaventura Balais, et al. G.R. No. L-34500March 18, 1988Moises Olivares, et al. vs. Carlos V. Gonzales G.R. No. L-34959March 18, 1988Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. L-53776March 18, 1988Silvestre Cañiza vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-54159March 18, 1988Republic of the Philippines vs. Glicerio V. Carriaga, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-75160March 18, 1988Leonor Formilleza vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-28141March 16, 1988Honorata B. Mangubat vs. Antonio J. Villegas, et al, G.R. No. L-36136March 16, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Avelino B. Isaac G.R. No. L-36220March 16, 1988Republic of the Philippines vs. Francisco Ma. Chanco G.R. No. L-36388March 16, 1988Commission on Elections vs. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. L-39083March 16, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Aniñon G.R. No. L-41358March 16, 1988Abelardo Aportadera, Sr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-47148March 16, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Fabian Quilo G.R. No. L-48157March 16, 1988Ricardo Quiambao vs. Adriano Osorio G.R. No. L-48594March 16, 1988Generoso Alano vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-52824March 16,1988Reynaldo Bautista vs. Amado C. Inciong G.R. No. L-61553March 16, 1988Ponciano Esmeris vs. Rodolfo A. Ortiz G.R. No. L-77869March 16, 1988Emilio Enriquez vs. Fortuna Mariculture Corporation A.C. No. 2756March 15, 1988Prudential Bank vs. Jose P. Castro, et al, G.R. No. L-74122March 15, 1988Guillermo Nactor, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-77194March 15, 1988Virgilio Gaston, et al. vs. Republic Planters Bank, et al. G.R. No. L-39383March 14, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Catalino B. Gutierrez, Jr. G.R. No. L-42964March 14, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Escabarte G.R. No. L-47398March 14, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Martin Cayago G.R. No. L-53194March 14, 1988Philippine National Bank vs. Hon. Romulo S. Quimpo G.R. No. L-55222March 14, 1988Lilia Cañete vs. Gabriel Benedicto G.R. No. L-56613March 14, 1988The Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-57204March 14, 1988Fortunato Borre, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-77188March 14, 1988Celso Bongay vs. Conchita J. Martinez G.R. No. L-34313March 11, 1988Salvador Ascalon vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-78470March 11, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Carlos De La Cruz G.R. No. 78994March 11, 1988Jose Acuna Bautista, also known as “Ramon Revilla”vs. Commission on Elections A.M. No. R-612-MTJMarch 10, 1988Arnulfo F. Lim vs. Sixto S. Seguiban G.R. No. 81846March 10, 1988Central Bank vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-37707March 9, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Mariquita J. Caparas G.R. No. L-38999March 9, 1988Oscar Honorio vs. Gabriel Dunuan G.R. No. L-62089March 9, 1988Pascual Mendoza, et al. vs. Court of Appeals A.C. No. 140-JMarch 8, 1988Ambrosio Sabayle vs. J. Teodulo C. Tandayag, et al. G.R. Nos. 82126-27March 8, 1988Brig. Gen. Luther A. Custodio G.R. No. L-24054March 7, 1988Re: Martin Ng A.M. No. 88-1-646-0March 3, 1988Request of the Plaintiffs, Heirs of the Passengers of the Doña Paz to Set Aside the Order Dated January 4, 1988 of Judge B.D. Chingcuangco G.R. No. L-59118March 3, 1988Juan Dizon, et al. vs. Vicente Eduardo, et al. G.R. No. 80868March 3, 1988Rodolfo T. Allarde vs. Commission on Elections, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Trinidad Gabriel, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Efren MercadoUnited Church Board vs. Alejandro E. SebastianPhilippine National Bank vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Felix Resayaga, et al.Philippine Apparel vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPeople of the Philippines vs. Filomeno SalufraniaNational Housing Authority vs. Manuel E. Valenzuela, et al.Warren Manufacturing Workers Union vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, et al.Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. vs. Jose T. Ramos, et al,Miguel L. Guerrero vs. Hon. Augusto M. AmoresRoderick Daoang, et al. vs. Municipal Judge, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, et al.Arsenio Ofrecio, et al, vs. Tomas Lising, et al,B.F. Goodrich Philippines Inc. vs. Workmens Compensation CommissionCarlos Lloraña, et al. vs. Tomas Leonidas, et al.Lucio Mutia, et al, vs. Court of Appeals, et al,Juanita Yap Say, et al, vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al,People of the Philippines vs. Vivencio D. TuazonLuisa Valdez, et al, vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al,Manuel B. Osias vs. Jaime N. FerrerRepublic of the Philippines vs. Jaime De Los AngelesPeople of the Philippines vs. Claro Laureta, Jr.Cenon Medelo vs. Hon. Nathanael M. GorospeAmado Buenaventura vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Montenegro, et al,People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo B. MustacisaLeonor Guzman Castillo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Manila Midtown Commercial Corporation vs. Nuwhrain, et al,Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Arnoldus Carpentry Shop, Inc. et al.People of the Philippines vs. Federico RosarioCornelia Clanor Vda. De Portugal, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.P.E. Domingo & Company, Inc., et al. vs. Remigio E. Zari, et al.Republic of the Philippines vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al,People of the Philippines vs. Danilo ValdezJuan Lopez Dungog vs. Court of AppealsTirzo Vintola vs. Insular Bank of Asia and AmericaInsular Bank of Asia and America vs. Spouses Epifania Salazar, et al.Christofer Tejones vs. Leopoldo B. Gironella, et al.Eduardo Laginlin vs. Workmen's Compensation Comm., et al,People of the Philippines vs. Castulo CorecorD. M. Consunji, Inc. vs. Severo M. Pucan, et al.Francisco S. Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, et al,Marte Saclolo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Honorio Saavedra, Jr. vs. Securities & Exchange CommissionConsolidated Bank and Trust Corporation vs. Dionisio M. CapistranoMaria Balais vs. Buenaventura Balais, et al.Moises Olivares, et al. vs. Carlos V. GonzalesPhilippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al,Silvestre Cañiza vs. People of the PhilippinesRepublic of the Philippines vs. Glicerio V. Carriaga, Jr., et al.Leonor Formilleza vs. SandiganbayanHonorata B. Mangubat vs. Antonio J. Villegas, et al,People of the Philippines vs. Avelino B. IsaacRepublic of the Philippines vs. Francisco Ma. ChancoCommission on Elections vs. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr.,People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin AniñonAbelardo Aportadera, Sr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Fabian QuiloRicardo Quiambao vs. Adriano OsorioGeneroso Alano vs. Employees' Compensation CommissionReynaldo Bautista vs. Amado C. InciongPonciano Esmeris vs. Rodolfo A. OrtizEmilio Enriquez vs. Fortuna Mariculture CorporationPrudential Bank vs. Jose P. Castro, et al,Guillermo Nactor, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtVirgilio Gaston, et al. vs. Republic Planters Bank, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Catalino B. Gutierrez, Jr.People of the Philippines vs. Francisco EscabartePeople of the Philippines vs. Martin CayagoPhilippine National Bank vs. Hon. Romulo S. QuimpoLilia Cañete vs. Gabriel BenedictoThe Director of Lands vs. Court of AppealsFortunato Borre, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Celso Bongay vs. Conchita J. MartinezSalvador Ascalon vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Carlos De La CruzJose Acuna Bautista, also known as “Ramon Revilla”vs. Commission on ElectionsArnulfo F. Lim vs. Sixto S. SeguibanCentral Bank vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Mariquita J. CaparasOscar Honorio vs. Gabriel DunuanPascual Mendoza, et al. vs. Court of AppealsAmbrosio Sabayle vs. J. Teodulo C. Tandayag, et al.Brig. Gen. Luther A. CustodioRe: Martin NgRequest of the Plaintiffs, Heirs of the Passengers of the Doña Paz to Set Aside the Order Dated January 4, 1988 of Judge B.D. ChingcuangcoJuan Dizon, et al. vs. Vicente Eduardo, et al.Rodolfo T. Allarde vs. Commission on Elections, et al.The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-26348 March 30, 1988

TRINIDAD GABRIEL, ANDREA GABRIEL, ISABEL GABRIEL, ESTER GABRIEL, BENJAMIM GABRIEL, SALUD GABRIEL, VICTORIA GABRIEL, RIZALINA GABRIEL AND ANDRES GABRIEL, JR.,petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, PETRITA PASCUAL and RUDYARDO SANTIAGO,respondents.

PARAS,J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse: (a) the Decision1of respondent Court of Appeals promulgated on May 31, 1966 in CA-G.R. No. 25418-R affirming the Decision2of the then Court of First Instance of Bataan in Civil Case No. 2283 which dismissed the complaint for recovery of land clue to, laches and prescription and required complainants herein petitioners) to surrender their certificates of title, and b) the Resolution3of the Court of Appeals dated July 7, 1966 denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.

As found by the Court of Appeals and the trial court.. the factual background of this case is as follows:

On April 12, 1909, a survey was made for Santiago Quimson of a parcel of land located in Barrio Totopiac, Orani, Bataan, containing an area of 687,360 square meters, more or less, the survey plan being designated as 1-1 054. This parcel of land was registered on September 18, 1909, and Original Certificate of Title No, 46 of the Registry of Deeds of Bataan was issued in favor of Quimson. Subsequently, a cadastral survey was made from February, 1919 to March, 1920 which resulted in the increase of the area of the land by 17,053 square meters and the designation of the land as Lot No. 363 of Orani Cadastre with an area of 704,413 square meters. After hearing, the Cadastral Court confirmed the title of Quimson and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 723 was issued in lieu of Original Certificate of Title No. 46. The lot was subdivided into Lot No. 363-A with an area of 209,250 square meters for which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 760 was issued, and Lot No. 363-B with an area of 495,163 square meters for which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 759 was issued. Lot No. 363-B was subsequently acquired by Eligio Naval and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 787 was issued in his name on July 6,1926.

In December, 1916, a parcel of land located in Barrio Bagumbayan, Hermoso, Bataan was surveyed for Potenciano Gabriel. Survey Plan Psu- 9742 was prepared and approved by the Director of Lands, with an area of 2,729,712 square meters. This plan was subsequently amended because it was found that certain portions of the land covered by Plan I-1054 in the name of Quimson and later transferred to Naval were included. The undivided portions were excluded by order of the Court and so Plan Psu- 9742 was amended (Plan Psu-9742-Amd) with an area of 2,436,280 or a reduction of 293,432 square meters. The Original Certificate of Title No. 1264 issued in the name of Potenciano Gabriel on November 1, 1918 contained the reduced area.

A cadastral survey was also made of the Municipality of Hermosa, Bataan and the land of Potenciano Gabriel, covered by Plan Psu-9742 Amd. became Lot No. 557 with a reduced area of 2,096,433 square meters, or a further reduction by 339,847 square meters. No new certificate of title was issued for Cadastral Lot No. 557 showing the reduced area so that Original Certificate of Title No. 1264 subsisted with an area of 2,436,280 square meters under Plan Psu-9742 Amd. Accordingly the partition of the estate of Potenciano Gabriel by his heirs on August 28, 1947 was based on plan Psu-9742 Amd. under Original Certificate of Title No. 1264 with an area of 2,436,280 square meters, instead of Lot No. 557 with a smaller area of 2,096,433 square meters.

Petitioners who are the heirs of the late Potenciano Gabriel and alleged joint co-owners of 1,196 square meters of a fishpond situated in Hermoso, Bataan by virtue of an agreement of partition of the estate of Don Potenciano, flied a complaint, Civil Case No. 2283 at the Court of First Instance of Bataan against Petrita Pascual and Rudyardo Santiago, joint administratrix and administrator of the estate of Eligio Naval, a son-in-law of Don Potenciano.

They claim that said land was usurped by the late Eligio Naval who was also an adjoining owner; that said land was only loaned to the latter for dike and water control purposes of the latter's fishpond and that after the death of Don Potenciano on February 17, 1943, private respondents continued to possess, occupy and use said property and notwithstanding repeated demands refused to vacate and to return the possession thereof, to the petitioners.

Hence, it was prayed that the defendants, private respondents herein, be ordered to vacate the premises described in the complaint and to pay damages (Rollo, pp. 18-20; Record on Appeal, p. 96). The records show that the portion of 1,196 square meters sought to be recovered by petitioners is included in Lot No. 363-B of the Orani Cadastre and in amended plan Psu-9742, mentioned above, which shall hereafter be referred to as Psu-9742 Amd. After the cadastral survey of Orani, said portion always remained in the possession of the late Eligio Naval because as above stated, it was included in Lot 363, which was subdivided into Lot 363-A and Lot 363-B. The latter, acquired by Naval with TCT No. 787 in his name, embraces the portion in question (Rollo, pp, 22-23).

There appears to be no controversy that aforesaid lot had always been in the possession of Naval in the concept of owner, as petitioners' claim that the same was merely loaned to Naval, was not properly supported by evidence, as found both by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

After trial, the court rendered its decision on August 29, 1958 dismissing the complaint on the ground that the right of the plaintiffs to the land in question, if any, was lost by prescription, and that the plaintiff are also guilty of laches in failing to prosecute their claim within a reasonable time.

Specifically, the dispositive portion of said judgment reads:

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court in its Decision promulgated on May 31, 1966, the dispositive portion of which states:

The petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied on July 7, 1966.

Hence, this petition.

In the resolution of December 19, 1966, the petition for review on certiorari was given due course (Rollo, p. 166). In the notice of January 5, 1967 (Rollo, p. 169) petitioners were required to file brief Meanwhile, private respondent Petrita Pascual in a manifestation and motion dated January 10, 1967 (Rollo, p. 170) informed this Court that the property in litigation was transferred by absolute sale to the spouses Morencio Lucio and Conchita Gandan and she prayed that said spouses be substituted in this action in her capacity of Petrita Pascual in her capacity as co-administratrix.

In the resolution of January 23, 1967 (Rollo, p. 1 72), petitioners were required to comment on aforesaid motion for substitution of parties. Said comment was filed by the petitioners on February 8, 1967 (Rollo, p. 176) opposing said motion as improper and praying instead that said parties be joined as additional respondents. Thus in the resolution of March 7, 1967 (Rollo, p. 184), this court authorized the inclusion of new parties, Florencio Lucio and Constancio Lucio. Petitioners submitted their Brief (Rollo, p. 177) on February 9, 1967 while respondents Petrita Pascual, Florencio Lucio and Constancio Lucio submitted their Brief on May 2,1967 (Reno, p. 195). For failure to file petitioner's Reply Brief, the court considered the case submitted for decision without the Reply Brief on November 8, 1968 (Rollo, p. 211).

The grounds relied upon for the petition are as follows:

The main issue in this case is whether or not courts have the authority to order the necessary correction of an erroneous technical description and make it conform to the correct area.ℒαwρhi৷

Petitioners contend that in ordering that OCT No. 1264 be made to conform with the land covered by Cadastral Lot No. 557 which contains an area very much less than that covered by said title, the trial court and later the Court of Appeals deprived them of their property as registered owners. Such act, petitioners insist, would amount to a reopening of a decree of title after the lapse of the one-year statutory period, or the granting of an entirely new decree to a land already registered under act 496, now P.D. 1529. Furthermore, such procedure is tantamount to a collateral attack on the title.

This contention is untenable.

It has long been settled that in cadastral cases the jurisdiction of the court over lands already registered is limited to the necessary correction of technical errors in the description of the lands, provided such corrections do not impair the substantial rights of the registered owner, and that such jurisdiction cannot operate to deprive a registered owner of his title. (Pamintuan v. San Agustin, 43 Phil. 561 [1922]).

In a later case, such power of the court was further clarified and amplified to the effect that the above proposition does not exclude from the jurisdiction of the court the power to determine the priority of over-lapping or over- lying registered titles. There is nothing in this proposition which militates against allowing the court in a cadastral case to determine which one of several conflicting registered titles shall prevail. This power is necessary for a complete settlement of the title to the land, which is the express purpose of cadastral proceedings and must therefore, be considered as within the jurisdiction of the courts in such proceedings. Furthermore, it was stressed that in such proceedings no final decree or registration was reopened or set aside (Timbol v. Diaz, 44 Phil. 589-590 [1932]).

In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals found that the lower court did not order the reopening of the decree of registration for the land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 1264 in the name of Potenciano Gabriel. Neither did the lower court decree a new registration in favor of the estate of Eligio Naval because said estate has a title that embraces actually the portion in dispute, although it is also included in the Original Certificate of Title No. 1264 of Potenciano Gabriel. What the lower court did was merely to correct the error in the technical description appearing in Plan Psu-9742 Amd. so as to make it conform to the areas and technical description of Lot No. 557 of the Hermoso Cadastre and Lot No. 363 of Orani Cadastre which lots embody the correct technical description thereof. Thus, the respondent appellate court stressed that this is not a reopening of the decree of registration for the land covered by the certificate of title of Potenciano Gabriel because that title stands and its existence remains unaffected. The action therefore of the trial court is well within its jurisdiction (Reno, pp. 40-41).

The fact that the portion of land in question is not a part of the property of the late Potenciano Gabriel, is established not only by the Hermoso and Orani Cadastre but by the behavior of Potenciano Gabriel himself, who is the original owner. He did not take the necessary action to recover said lot during his lifetime but after the discovery of its occupation in March, 1933, by the late Eligio Naval, he allowed instead the continued use and occupation of the same. In fact, there is no dispute that Eligio Naval and his successors-in-interest have always been in possession of said property since that date. As previously stated, petitioners' claim that such occupation was by virtue of a loan or accommodation, was not supported by evidence. As held by this court, title and possession of registered owners, cannot be defeated by oral evidence which can easily be fabricated and contradicted Sinoan v. Sorongan, 136 SCRA 407 [1985]).

As found by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, both parties were in occupation of their respective properties within the correct areas and boundaries sought to be adjusted in this case. More than that, it was also found that there is no impairment of substantial right or the deprivation of the title of a registered owner, sought to be guarded against. The heirs of Potenciano Gabriel are not deprived of the land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 1264, nor are they unjustly deprived of the portion in question because on the basis of the correct technical description, that portion is not a part of their property but a part of the property of the late Eligio Naval under TCT No. 797. Hence, this Court has held that the Land Registration Act and the Cadastral Act do not give anybody who resorts to the provisions thereof a better title than what he really and lawfully has. More specifically the decision reads:

Finally as correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, petitioners for failing to prosecute their claims for twenty (20) years have lost by laches their right to recover their property. In a similar case, this Court ruled that failure of the deceased or his predecessors-in-interest to take steps to assert any rights over the disputed land for 20 years from date of registration of title is fatal to their cause of action ground of laches (Layno v. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 718 [1984]).

PREMISES CONSIDERED,the petition isDISMISSEDfor lack of merit, and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals isAFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Footnotes