 Martinez, petitioner, is the registered owner of 3 contiguous parcels of land situated

in Antipolo, Rizal (TCT No. 250212, 25044, 250243)

 Las Brisas (merger of 2 corps.), respondent, is the registered owner of parcel of
land TCT No. 153101
 In 1968, Las Brisas constructed a fence that encroached upon the land of Martinez
 Martinez sent multiple letters (5) requesting Las Brisas to refrain from construction,
but the latter failed to respond
 Las Brisas, through Paul Naidas, sent a letter for response claiming it cannot trace
the origin of Martinez’s titles
 Ricardo Cruz, a geodetic engineer hired by Martinez, surveyed the land and found Las
Brisas occupied some portions of Martinez lands
 Martinez sent another letter demanding Las Brisas to cease and desist from unlawfully
holding portions of its land, no action was taken.
 Martinez filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Cancellation of Title and Recovery of
Ownership with Damages
 Martinez added in the complaint that her TCTs emanated from Decree No. 1921
transcribed as OCT No. 756 on August, 1915
 Las Brisas title was registered on September, 1973, thus casts a cloud on Martinez’s
titles
Martinez – Petitioner
 TCTs emanated from OCT in 1915
 Ricardo Cruz’s survey showed
encroachment of Las Brisas of
Martinez’s land
 Las Brisas TCT casts a cloud upon its
titles
Las Brisas – Respondent
 Innocent buyer in good faith and for
value, merely relied on the validity
and indefeasibility of their title
 Martinez should be barred by laches
for filing an action after 30 years from
first notice
 Art. 544, 546, 548 of the New Civil
Code
Ruled in favor of Martinez
 Martinez’s mother title was registered 58 years before Las Brisas’
 “When two certificates of title are issued to be different persons covering the same land, in
whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail and in cases of successive registrations where
more than one certificate of title is issued over the same land, the person holding a prior
certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate.”
 Art. 526 of the Civil Code
 While Las Brisas was a buyer in good faith, it was informed repeatedly that its fence was within
Martinez’s property
 Records show that Las Brisas received the letters of notice but chose to ignore them, and even
sent a response through Naidas
 Good faith ceased when upon being informed by Martinez, it continued to build structures the
latter’s land
Appeal failed
 Art. 528 of Civil Code
 “Possession acquired in good faith does not lose his character, except in a case and from
the moment facts exist which show that the possessor is not unaware that he possesses the
thing improperly or wrongfully.”
 Records show the Las Brisas received notices from Martinez and in fact replied through
Naidas
 Las Brisas chose to ignore Martinez’s demand and continued constructing
 It cannot claim that it had no knowledge of the defects of its title, cannot be considered in
good faith.
 Martinez is not barred by laches
 The right to demand to recover the portions encroached by Las Brisas is never barred by
Laches.
 It is imprescriptible
Denied the Petition
 Verification Survey caused by Martinez, approved by Regional Technical Director of
Lands, revealed Las Brisas encroached the former’s land.
 Verification survey is a public document which enjoys presumption of regularity
 Petitioner did not present evidence to contradict the Verification survey

 Las Brisas not a builder in good faith

 While petitioner have been innocent buyers for value to their land, this does not prove that
they are innocent of claim of encroachment upon respondent’s land.
 Despite being apprised of the encroachment, they turned a blind eye and deaf ear and
continued construction.
Art. 449, 450, 451
 According to Art. 451, Martinez is entitled to damages

 Art. 452
 Builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for necessary expenses of
preservation of the land.
 Petitioner did not preserve the land of respondent, but damaged it through construction

 Question of Laches
 Respondent has the imprescriptible right to recover possession from any person illegally
occupying its lands.
 Prescription and laches cannot apply to registered land covered by the Torrens system, in
accordance to Sec. 47 of Property Registration Decree