SAN ROQUE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (through the Arme For!

e" o# the Ph$%$&&$'e"(, respondent. )*R* No* +,-+-., Se&tem/er 0, 1..0 Facts: The subject parcels of land are located at Lahug, Cebu City. It was originally owned by Ismael D. Rosales, antaleon Cabrera and !rancisco Raca"a. #ubject parcels of land, together with seventeen $%&' others, were the subject of an e(propriation proceeding initiated by the then Commonwealth of the hilippines doc)eted as Civil Case *o. &+%. ,udge !eli( -artine" ordered the initial deposit of .,/00.00 as pre1condition for the entry on the lands sought to be e(propriated. 2n %3 -ay %.30, a Decision was rendered condemning the parcels of land. 4owever, the title of the subject parcel of land was not transferred to the government. 5ventually, the land was subdivided and T.C.T. *o. %%.36 was cancelled and new titles were issued by the Register of Deeds of Cebu. Two parcels covered by T.C.T. *os. %7+%.& $Lot *o. .881918' and %7+%.+ $Lot *o. .881913' were ac:uired by defendant1appellee. In %../, defendant1appellee begun construction of townhouses on the subject parcels of land. laintiff1appellant filed the present case $Records, pp. %1%/' alleging that it is the owner of the subject parcels of land by virtue of the %.8+ Decision in the e(propriation case, thus, T.C.T. *os. %7+%.& and %7+%.+ are null and void. It argued that defendant1appellee, had no right to possess the subject properties because it was not its lawful owner. In its ;nswer, defendant1appellee claimed that it was a buyer in good faith. It also claimed that there was no valid e(propriation because it was initiated by the e(ecutive branch without legislative approval. It also alleged that the e(propriation was never consummated because the government did not actually enter the land nor were the owners paid any compensation. The RTC rendered a Decision dismissing the Republic<s complaint and upholding #RRDC<s ownership over the subject properties as supported by #RRDC<s actual possession thereof and its un:ualified title thereto. It also found that there was no valid e(propriation since the records are bereft of a showing that consideration was paid for the subject properties. ;ggrieved, the Republic appealed the decision to the C; insisting on its absolute ownership over the subject properties. The C; reversed the RTC Decision on the finding that the appeal from the C!I Decision in the e(propriation case was never perfected by the original owners of the subject properties, and thus, the e(propriation of Lot *o. .88 became final and binding on the original owners, and #RRDC, which merely stepped into the latter<s shoes, is similarly bound. Issue: =2* the C; erred in holding that the $a'validity of the e(propriation proceedings> $b' respondent had a better right to the subject properties and $c' respondent is not guilty of laches Ruling: The C; disregarded relevant facts and ignored the evidence, noteworthy among which is that when the Republic filed its complaint with the RTC, it alleged that the C!I Decision in Civil Case *o. &+% had long become final and e(ecutory. 4owever, this assertion would compound the

Republic?s predicament, because the Republic could not ade:uately e(plain its failure to register its ownership over the subject property or, at least, annotate its lien on the title. Trying to e(tricate itself from this :uandary, the Republic belatedly presented a copy of an 5(ception and *otice of Intention to ;ppeal dated ,uly ., %.30, to show that an appeal filed by the original owners of Lot *o. .88 effectively prevented the Republic from registering its title, or even only annotating its lien, over the property. The C;?s categorical pronouncement that the C!I Decision had become final as no appeal was perfected by #RRDC?s predecessor1in1interest is, therefore, contradicted by the Republic?s own allegation that an appeal had been filed by the original owners of Lot *o. .88. *ot only did the C; fail to resolve the issue of the Republic?s failure to register the property in its name, it also did not give any e(planation as to why title and continuous possession of the property remained with #RRDC and its predecessors1in1interest for fifty1si( years. The C; ruling that disregards these established facts and neglects to reconcile the contradiction mentioned above does not deserve concurrence by this Court. In Republic v. Lim, Court emphasi"ed that no piece of land can be finally and irrevocably ta)en from an unwilling owner until compensation in paid. =ithout !@LL ;A-5*T 2! ,@#T C2- 5*#;TI2*, there can be no transfer of title from the landowner to the e(propriator. Thus, the Republic<s failure to pay just compensation precluded the perfection of its title over the lot sought to be e(propriated. In fact, we went even further and recogni"ed the right of the unpaid owner to recover the property if within / years from the decision of the e(propriation court, the e(propriator fails to effect payment of just compensation. Time and again, we have declared that 5-I*5*T D2-;I* cases are to be strictly construed against the e(propriator. The payment of just compensation for private property ta)en for public use is an indispensable re:uisite for the e(ercise of the #tate<s sovereign power of eminent domain. !ailure to observe this re:uirement renders the ta)ing ineffectual, notwithstanding the avowed public purpose. To disregard this limitation on the e(ercise of governmental power to e(propriate is to ride roughshod over private rights. !rom the records of this case and our previous findings in the related case, the Republic manifestly failed to present clear and convincing evidence of full payment of just compensation and receipt thereof by the property owners. -ore importantly, if the Republic had actually made full payment of just compensation, in the ordinary course of things, it would have led to the cancellation of title, or at least, the annotation of the lien in favor of the government on the certificate of title. The registration with the Registry of Deeds of the Republic<s interest arising from the e(ercise of it<s power or eminent domain is in consonance with the Land Registration ;ct. There is no showing that the Republic complied with the aforesaid registration re:uirement. !rom the foregoing, it is clear that it was incumbent upon the Republic to cause the registration of the subject properties in its name or record the decree of e(propriation on the title. Aet, not only did the Republic fail to register the subject properties in its name, it failed to do so for /6 years. L;C45# is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and une(plained length of time, to do that which by e(ercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier> it 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. The general rule is that the #tate cannot be put in estoppel or laches by the mista)es or errors of its officials or agents. This rule, however, admits of e(ceptions. 2ne e(ception is when the strict application of the rule will defeat the effectiveness of a policy adopted to protect the public, such as the Torrens system. Bery telling of the Republic<s silence and inaction, whether intentional or by sheer negligence, is the testimony of Infante, the Republic<s witness in the proceedings before the RTC, testifying that several surveys were conducted on a number of e(propriated lots, which surveys showed that the subject lot was still registered in the name of the original owners. ;s such, Infante recommended in his report that legal action be ta)en. Aet despite aforesaid recommendation, title to subject lot remained registered in the name of the original owners, ans subse:uently, its transferees. This silence and une(plained inaction by the Republic clearly constitute laches. The trial court correctly held that title registered under the Torrens system is notice to the whole world. 5very person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of its certificate of title and the law will not oblige him to go beyond what appears on the face thereof to determine the condition of the property. ;n innocent purchaser for value is one who, relying on the certificate of title, bought the property from the registered owner, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before ha has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property. =45R5!2R5, premises considered, the petition is CR;*T5D