Jakosalem and Dulfo v.

Barangan
G.R. No. 175025
February 15, 2012
Del Castillo, J.
Rogelio
J.
Jakosalem
and
Godofredo
B.
Dulfo
petitioners

Guidote

responden
Roberto S. Barangan
ts
summary Col. Barangan purchased a parcel of land and was able to obtain a TCT in his

name. However, he was not able to take possession of the land as he was
assigned to different stations as a member of the Air Force. After his
retirement, he discovered that Dulfo and his family had constructed their house
on his land. Barangan filed an action to recover possession thereof, which the
RTC dismissed. CA reversed. SC affirmed. Barangan was able to sufficiently
prove (1) the identity of the land claimed, and (2) his title thereto. He
presented his TCT, the Deed of Absolute Sale, and the Land Purchase
Agreement. He also offered the testimonies of the the engineer who performed
the relocation survey as well as the caretaker of the subdivision.

facts of the case

Respondent Col. Roberto S. Barangan entered into a Land Purchase Agreement with
Citadel Realty Corporation. Upon full payment of the purchase price, a Deed of Absolute
Sale was executed in his favor.
o The TCT over the land was likewise transferred to his name.
Barangan was unable to physically occupy the subject land as he was then a member of
the Philippine Air Force. Thus, he was often assigned to different stations in the Philippines.
Upon his retirement from the government service, he went to visit his property and
discovered that it was being occupied by petitioner Godofredo B. Dulfo and his family.
Barangan sent a letter to Dulfo demanding that they vacate the property.
o Dulfo, through his son-in-law Atty. Rogelio J. Jakosalem, replied that the said
property was owned by them through a Deed of Assignment from the previous
owner, Samson.
Barangan filed a complaint for violation of the anti-squatting law before the Barangay. No
amicable settlement was reached; hence, the complaint was filed before the Prosecutors
Office.
o Case dismissed as the issue of ownership must be resolved in a civil action.
Barangan filed a complaint for recovery of possession before the RTC of Antipolo, and
presented the following as evidence:
o Testimony of Estardo (caretaker of the subdivision) to the effect that the Dulfos were
previously occupying an adjacent lot, but then started squatting on Barangans
property;
o Testimony of an employee of the Municipal Assessor of Rizal, to prove that Barangan
was the registered owner of the lot; and
o Testimony of Engr. Jonco, to prove that the lot owned by Barangan and that
occupied by Dulfo were one and the same.
RTC: Dismissed the case. Prescription and laches already set in, and Barangan was not
able to sufficiently prove his claim.
CA: Reversed.

issue

Whether or not Barangan is entitled to recover possession of the property. YES.

1

ratio
The property was sufficiently identified.
Barangan offered the testimonies of Engr. Jonco, who conducted the relocation survey, and
Estardo, the caretaker of the subdivision, who showed Barangan the exact location of the
property.
He likewise submitted the Verification Survey Plan of the lot based on the technical
description in the TCT.
Barangan was able to prove his title thereto.
Barangan presented the following in evidence:
o Land Purchase Agreement;
o Deed of Absolute Sale; and
o TCT.
Laches and prescription do not apply.
Prescription does not apply to registered land covered by the Torrens system.
Under PD 1529, no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner
shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.

disposition
Petition denied.