Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Jakosalem and Dulfo v. Barangan, G.R. No. 175025, 15 February 2012.

First Division

In 1966, Barangan purchased a 300 sq. m. land and a new title, TCT No. N-10772, was
issued in his name. Since then, he has been dutifully paying real property taxes for the
said property. He was not, however, able to physically occupy the subject property
because as a member of the Philippine Air Force, he was often assigned to various
stations in the Philippines. In 1993, when he was about to retire, Barangan went to visit
his property where he was planning to build a retirement home. It was only then that
he discovered that it was being occupied by Dulfo and his family.

In February 1994, Barangan sent a letter to Dulfo demanding that he and his family
vacate the subject property within 30 days. In reply, Atty. Jakosalem, the son-in-law of
Dulfo, sent a letter claiming ownership over the subject property. In May 1994,
Barangan commissioned a geodetic engineer to conduct a relocation survey of the
subject property which revealed that the property occupied by Dulfo and his family is
the same property covered by Barangan’s title. In November 1994, Barangan filed a
complaint for recovery of possession against Dulfo and Jakosalem with the RTC.

(1) Is Barangan entitled to recover the subject property?
(2) If so, is he entitled to actual and moral damages, as well as attorney’s fees?
(3) Are laches and prescription applicable in the case?

(1) YES, Barangan is entitled to recover the subject property. Article 434 of the Civil
Code provides that in an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the
plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendants
claim. In other words, in order to recover possession, a person must prove (1) the
identity of the land claimed, and (2) his title. In the case, Barangan was able to prove
the identity of the property and his title.

(2) YES, since he was deprived of possession. For the mental anguish, sleepless
nights and serious anxiety suffered by Barangan, he is entitled to moral damages under
Article 2217 of the Civil Code. Although not alleged in the complaint, he is entitled to
attorney’s fees because it is sanctioned by law, specifically, paragraphs 2 and 11 of
Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
(3) NO. Jurisprudence consistently holds that prescription and laches cannot apply
to registered land covered by the Torrens system because under the Property
Registration Decree, no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered
owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.