en banc cases of Dizon , De Villa and Gatioan , I believe that Las Brisas could not be faulted for relying on its own certificate of title which, until nullified or voided by a court of competent jurisdiction, is incontrovertible or indefeasible - and it would be unjust to expect Las Brisas to make a legal determinatio

en banc cases of Dizon , De Villa and Gatioan , I believe that Las Brisas could not be faulted for relying on its own certificate of title which, until nullified or voided by a court of competent jurisdiction, is incontrovertible or indefeasible - and it would be unjust to expect Las Brisas to make a legal determination of the validity of its certificate of title. It should be mentioned that Las Brisas bought the land in a foreclosure sale. Furthermore, Las Brisas should not be blamed for the failure of the government agency concerned to ascertain the overlapping when it approved the survey plan that became the basis for the application and approval of the confirmation of the original title of Las Brisas' predecessor-in-interest, which overlapping also escaped the attention of the court that granted the application and confirmed the title.

Even the Assessor's Office of Anti polo City never noticed the overlapping since there is no indication thereof in the parties' respective declarations of real property value for real property tax purposes. As formulated in Dizon , the matter indeed involves a doubtful or difficult question of law which, under Article 526, may be the basis of good faith. More importantly, it was impossible for Las Brisas to have unearthed or discovered the overlapping of titles from the records of the Anti polo City Registry of Deeds at the time it bought its land from Republic Bank and while it was building the improvements.

The records of the said Registry of Deeds could not be relied upon to disclose such overlapping. Evidently, there are at least two registrations that must be scrutinized and the traceback or scrutiny of one registration will not readily reveal the existence of the others and vice versa. To my mind, a full proof application of the constructive notice doctrine requires that the defect or flaw in the title could be ascertained from a competent and exhaustive due diligence on the subject titled property.

To require beyond that would be asking the impossible. That would be both oppressive and unjust. The fact that Las Brisas did not present its own survey, unlike MLI, is of no moment.

What is crucial is that the improvements that Las Brisas made were within the boundaries described in its title.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#fnt30)and noted that the construction works of Las Brisas were on the overlapped portions of TCT Nos.

250242, 250243 and 250244.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#fnt31) Indeed, the real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and to forever stop any question as to its legality, so that once a title is registered, the owner - in this case, Las Brisas - may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the "mirador su casa, " to avoid the possibility of losing his land.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#fnt32)Because of this principle, MLI needed to file a complaint to directly question the validity of Las Brisas' title which resulted to its partial nullity because a collateral attack on Las Brisas' Torrens title is not allowed.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#fnt33) Finally, even assuming that, as intimated by the ponencia , Las Brisas' initial -good faith when it bought the property ceased when it received the seven letters from MLI, it is significant to note that the latter filed the complaint for quieting of title/cancellation of title and recovery of ownership only on March 24, 1997(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#fnt34)- almost 30 years from 1968 when MLI sent its first letter after it noticed the construction of Las Brisas' fence within the contested area, and allowing Las Brisas to develop the property and conducting its business therein, to put up a two-story building initially, and in 1988, to expand and put up a multi-story conference center(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#fnt35)building that finished construction sometime in 1995 sourced from bank loans and costing Las Brisas ₱55,000,000.00.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#fnt36)By no means can this be considered as MLI seasonably availing of "the means established by the laws and the Rules of Court,"

such as a petition for injunction with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, to protect MLI in its possession thereof or restore to MLI its possession over the same.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#fnt37) These circumstances indubitably taint MLI's good faith.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#fnt38) Under Article 453 of the Civil Code: If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith. It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part. While MLI "opposed"

the introduction of improvements by Las Brisas through the letters the former sent to the latter, this "opposition" can only be considered as token. MLI should have seasonably resorted to court action when Las Brisas kept ignoring its claim of ownership over the disputed areas.

MLI is now barred by estoppel by laches to claim good faith insofar as the construction by Las Brisas is concerned of the improvements, consisting mainly of a ₱55,000,000.00-worth multi-story building that it introduced in the disputed areas.

Laches is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#fnt39)It is a type of equitable estoppel which arises when a party, knowing his rights as against another, takes no steps or delays in enforcing them until the condition of the latter, who has no knowledge or notice that the former would assert such rights, has become so changed that he cannot without injury or prejudice, be restored to his former state.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#fnt40) In this case, the doctrines of laches and estoppel are being invoked in relation to the issue of possession and not with respect to ownership. Section 47 of PD 1529 finds no application as it is confined to "title to registered land."

Given the foregoing, I take the position that Las Brisas acted in good faith, or, at the very least, be deemed to be in good faith since both Las Brisas. and MLI were in bad faith following Article 453 of the Civil Code. Thus, Article 448 is controlling in determining the rights and obligations of MLI and Las Brisas with respect to the old building, the new multi-story edifice and the riprapping.

Article 448 of the Civil Code provides: The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity.

The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof. As to the riprapping, I believe that it is a necessary improvement that it is to be refunded to every possessor, whether in good faith or in bad faith, pursuant to Article 546. Thus, I vote to GRANT the petition.

The Decision dated July 17, 2013 and the Resolution dated March 23, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 97478 should be REVERSED and SETASIDE. Finding the parties to have acted in good faith insofar as the improvements introduced by petitioner Las Brisas Resort Corporation are concerned, the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 71 should be directed to issue an Order in Civil Case No. 97-4386, directing the parties to observe and comply with their respective rights and obligations under Article 448 of the Civil Code. ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA Associate Justice Footnotes (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt1) Pen Development Corp. merged with Las Brisas Resorts Corp and the latter is the surviving entity; see rollo , p.

43. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt2) 31 Phil. 590 (1915). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt3) Id.

at 598-599. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt4) Decision, p. 15.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt5) Supra note 2. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt6) 121 Phil. 681 (1965). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt7) 131 Phil. 269 (1968).

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt8) 137 Phil. 125 (I 969). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt9) Now Sec. 32, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529 or the Property Registration Decree.

It is in this section that the phrase "innocent purchaser for value" is mentioned and it is deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt10) Now Sec. 53, PD 1529.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt11) Now Sec. 108, PD 1529. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt12) Legarda v. Saleeby, supra note 2, at 599. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt13) Id.

at 600-602. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt14) Id. at 602.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt15) Supra note 6. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt16) Id. at 686.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt17) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt18) Id. at 686-687.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt19) Supra note 7. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt20) "₱48,000.00 per annum representing the value of the abaca fibers derived from the land plus the further sum of PJ60.00 every two months representing the value of the harvests from coconuts, starting from the period beginning March 2, 1961 until possession of the property is restored to the plaintiff." Id.

at 275-276. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt21) De Villa v. Trinidad, supra note 7, at 277-278. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt22) Supra note 8.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt23) Gatioan v. Gaffud, supra note 8, at 132-133. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt24) 27 Phil. 537 (1914). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt25) In the letters (Exhs.

"M", "N'', "O'', "P", "R", and "S") it will be noted that MLI indicated the TCT Nos. of the land being claimed by MLI where Las Brisas was introducing improvements and their predecessor certificates of title. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt26) Decision, pp. 6-7. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt27) See Republic v. Court of Appeals, 230 Phil. 118, 120 (1986).

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt28) Republic v. Court of Appeals, 244 Phil. 387, 389-390 (1988). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt29) Sec. 52. Constructive notice upon registration.

- Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument, or entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering, filing or entering. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt30) CA Decision, p. 2; rollo , p.

43. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt31) Id. at 7; id.

at 48. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt32) Judge Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE AND RELATED LAWS (LAND TITLES AND DEEDS) (2015), p. 295.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt33) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt34) Complaint, rollo , pp. 91-99. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt35) Petition for Review, par.

13, p. 3; id. at 13.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt36) Id, pars. 15, 16 and 17, p. 4, citing TSN, July 14, 2004, pp. 8-9; id.

at 14. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt37) CIVIL CODE, Art. 539. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt38) It must be noted that the owners of Las Brisas acquired the titled property from Republic Bank in 1967; rollo , p.

13. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt39) Desiderio P. Jurado, COMMENTS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS (1987 Ninth Rev. Ed.), pp. 622-623, citing Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 131 Phil. 556 (1968). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#rnt40) Id.

at 623. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation [](javascript:history.back\(1\)) [](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr211845so2017.html#top)