SAN ROQUE REALTY V. REPUBLIC (EXPROPRIATION, LACHES, LAND REGISTRATION)

In Republic v. Lim, we emphasized that no piece of land can be finally and irrevocably taken from an unwilling owner until compensation in paid.

Without FULL PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION, there can be no transfer of title from the landowner to the expropriator. Thus, the Republic's failure to pay just compensation precluded the perfection of its title over the lot sought to be expropriated. In fact, we went even further and recognized the right of the unpaid owner to recover the property if within 5 years from the decision of the expropriation court, the expropriator fails to effect payment of just compensation.

Time and again, we have declared that EMINENT DOMAIN cases are to be strictly construed against the expropriator. The payment of just compensation for private property taken for public use is an indispensable requisite for the exercise of the State's sovereign power of eminent domain. Failure to observe this requirement renders the taking ineffectual, notwithstanding the avowed public purpose. To disregard this limitation on the exercise of governmental power to expropriate is to ride roughshod over private rights.

From 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. More 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 exercise of it's power or eminent domain is in consonance with the Land Registration Act. There is no showing that the Republic complied with the aforesaid registration requirement.

From 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 expropriation on the title. Yet, not only did the Republic fail to register the subject properties in its name, it failed to do so for 56 years.

This brings us to the question: Is the Republic, by its failure or neglect to assert its claim, barred by laches?

LACHES is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising 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 State cannot be put in estoppel or laches by the mistakes or errors of its officials or agents. This rule, however, admits of exceptions. One exception 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.

Very 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 expropriated lots, which surveys showed that the subject lot was still registered in the name of the original owners. As such, Infante recommended in his report that legal action be taken. Yet despite aforesaid recommendation, title to subject lot remained registered in the name of the original owners, ans subsequently, its transferees. This silence and unexplained 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. Every 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.

An 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.