7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

1/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |1

G.R. No. 160711 August 14, 2004

HEIRS OF MAXIMO LABANON, represete! "# ALI$IA LABANON$A%E&O '! t(e )RO*IN$IAL ASSESSOR OF $O+ABA+O,Petitioners,vs.HEIRS OF $ONS+AN$IO LABANON, represete! "# ALBER+OMAILANG,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

*ELAS$O, -R.,J.:

The Case

This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 sees the re!all andnullifi!ation of the "a# $, %&&' De!ision(of the Court of )ppeals *C)+ in C)-.R. C No. /5/(0 entitled 1eirs of Constan!io 2a3anon represented 3#

)l3erto "ailan v. 1eirs of "ai6o 2a3anon represented 3# )li!ia 2a3anonCa7edo and the Provin!ial )ssessor of Cota3ato, whi!h reversed the )uust($, (888 De!ision%of the 9idapawan Cit#, Cota3ato Reional Trial Court*RTC+, :ran!h (0, in Civil Case No. $/5. 2iewise assailed is the O!to3er (',%&&' Resolution'whi!h disrearded petitioners; "otion for Re!onsideration.

The >II, hesettled upon a pie!e of aliena3le and disposa3le pu3li! ari!ultural land

situated at :r#. 2anao, 9idapawan, Cota3ato . Constan!io !ultivated thesaid lot and introdu!ed per6anent i6prove6ents that still eist up to thepresent. :ein of ver# li6ited edu!ational attain6ent, he found it diffi!ult tofile his pu3li! land appli!ation over said lot. Constan!io then ased his3rother, "ai6o 2a3anon who was 3etter edu!ated to file the !orrespondinpu3li! land appli!ation under the epress aree6ent that the# will divide thesaid lot as soon as it would 3e feasi3le for the6 to do so. The offer wasa!!epted 3# "ai6o. Durin the ti6e of the appli!ation it was Constan!iowho !ontinued to !ultivate the said lot in order to !o6pl# with the !ultivationre?uire6ent set forth under Co66onwealth )!t (4(, as a6ended, on1o6estead appli!ations. )fter whi!h, on @une /, (84(, due to industr# ofConstan!io, 1o6estead )ppli!ation No. %4404% *E(%$$&%+ of his 3rother"ai6o was approved with 1o6estead Patent No. /05(%. Eventuall#, Oriinal

Certifi!ate of Title No. P(4'%& was issued 3# the Reister of Deeds ofCota3ato over said lot in favor of "ai6o 2a3anon.

On ), *D))OCOT):)TO RO)D+ 3# T>O 1NDRED NERS1IP in favor of 6# 3rother Constan!io

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_160711_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_160711_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_160711_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_160711_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_160711_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_160711_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_160711_2007.html#fnt1

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

2/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |2

2a3anon, now de!eased, now for his heirs, for the eastern half portion of theland a3ove des!ri3ed, and whi!h deed was dul# notariJed 3# notar# pu3li!1ERE

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

3/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |3

SO ORDERED.

The Issues

Surprised 3# the turn of events, petitioners 3rouht this petition 3efore usraisin the followin issues, to wit=

(. >hether or not Oriinal Certifi!ate of Title No. 4('%& issued on)pril (&, (805 in the na6e of ")I"O 2):)NON 3e now !onsideredindefeasi3le and !on!lusiveB and

%. >hether or not the Trust )ree6ent alleedl# 6ade 3# Constan!io2a3anon and "ai6o 2a3anon pres!ri3ed.0

The Court;s Rulin

The petition 6ust fail.

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

4/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |4

Se!ond Issue

The trust aree6ent 3etween "ai6o 2a3anon and Constan!io 2a3anon 6a#still 3e enfor!ed

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

5/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |5

death, the trust !ould no loner 3e renoun!edB thus, respondents; riht toenfor!e the trust aree6ent !an no loner 3e restri!ted nor preGudi!ed 3#pres!ription.

It 6ust 3e noted that the )ssin6ent of Rihts and Ownership and "ai6o2a3anon;s Sworn State6ent were ee!uted after the 1o6estead Patent wasapplied for and eventuall# ranted with the issuan!e of 1o6estead Patent No.

/05(% on @une /, (84%. Evidentl#, it was the intent of "ai6o 2a3anon tohold the title over the land in his na6e while re!oniJin Constan!io2a3anon;s e?uita3le ownership and a!tual possession of the eastern portion ofthe land !overed 3# OCT No. P(4'%&.

In addition, petitioners !an no loner ?uestion the validit# of the positivede!laration of "ai6o 2a3anon in the )ssin6ent of Rihts and Ownership infavor of the late Constan!io 2a3anon, as the aree6ent was not i6puneddurin the for6er;s lifeti6e and the re!onition of his 3rother;s rihts overthe eastern portion of the lot was further affir6ed and !onfir6ed in thesu3se?uent )pril %5, (8/% Sworn State6ent.

Se!tion '(, Rule ('& of the Rules of Court is the repositor# of the settledpre!ept that AHwhere one derives title to propert# fro6 another, the a!t,de!laration, or o6ission of the latter, while holdin the title, in relation to thepropert#, is eviden!e aainst the for6er.A Thus, petitioners have a!!epted thede!laration 6ade 3# their prede!essorininterest, "ai6o 2a3anon, that theeastern portion of the land !overed 3# OCT No. P(4'%& is owned andpossessed 3# and rihtfull# 3elons to Constan!io 2a3anon and the latter;sheirs. Petitioners !annot now fein inoran!e of su!h a!nowled6ent 3#their father, "ai6o.

2astl#, the heirs of "ai6o 2a3anon are 3ound to the stipulations e63odiedin the )ssin6ent of Rihts and Ownership pursuant to )rti!le ('0( of theCivil Code that !ontra!ts tae effe!t 3etween the parties, assins, and heirs.

Petitioners as heirs of "ai6o !annot disarrow the !o66it6ent 6ade 3#their father with respe!t to the su3Ge!t propert# sin!e the# were 6erel#su3roated to the rihts and o3liations of their prede!essorininterest. The#si6pl# stepped into the shoes of their prede!essor and 6ust thereforere!oniJe the rihts of the heirs of Constan!io over the eastern portion of thelot. )s the old adae oes, the sprin !annot rise hiher than its sour!e.

>1ERE

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

6/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |6

G.R. No. 16427 M'r( 21, 2011

BE++ B. LA$BAAN,Petitioner,vs.

BAANI S. SAMO, -R.,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

*ILLARAMA, -R.,J.:

This settles the petition for review on !ertiorari filed 3# petitioner :ett# :.

2a!3a#an aainst respondent :a#ani S. Sa6o#, @r. assailin the Septe63er

(4, %&&4 De!ision(of the Court of )ppeals *C)+ in C)-.R. C No. /058/.

The C) had affir6ed the

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

7/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |7

toP(5,5&&,&&&.&&.(5Respondent, in his )nswer,(/however, denied petitioner;s

!lai6 of !oha3itation and said that the properties were a!?uired out of his

own personal funds without an# !ontri3ution fro6 petitioner.(0

Durin the trial, petitioner ad6itted that althouh the# were toether for

al6ost %4 hours a da# in (8$' until (88(, respondent would still o ho6e to

his wife usuall# in the wee hours of the 6ornin.($

Petitioner liewise !lai6edthat the# a!?uired the said real estate properties fro6 the in!o6e of the

!o6pan# whi!h she and respondent esta3lished.(8

Respondent, 6eanwhile, testified that the properties were pur!hased fro6 his

personal funds, salaries, dividends, allowan!es and !o66issions.%&1e

!ountered that the said properties were reistered in his na6e toether with

petitioner to e!lude the sa6e fro6 the propert# rei6e of respondent and

his leal wife, and to prevent the possi3le dissipation of the said properties

sin!e his leal wife was then a heav# a63ler.%(Respondent added that he

also pur!hased the said properties as invest6ent, with the intention to sell

the6 later on for the pur!hase or !onstru!tion of a new 3uildin.%%

On

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

8/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |8

. The properties involved were a!?uired 3# 3oth parties throuh their

a!tual Goint !ontri3ution of 6one#, propert#, or industr#.%0

Noti!ea3l#, the last aru6ent is essentiall# a ?uestion of fa!t, whi!h we feel

has 3een s?uarel# threshed out in the de!isions of 3oth the trial and appellate

!ourts. >e dee6 it wise not to distur3 the findins of the lower !ourts on the

said 6atter a3sent an# showin that the instant !ase falls under thee!eptions to the eneral rule that ?uestions of fa!t are 3e#ond the a63it of

the Court;s Gurisdi!tion in petitions under Rule 45 of the (880 Rules of Civil

Pro!edure, as a6ended. The issues 6a# 3e su66ariJed into onl# three=

I. >hether an a!tion for partition pre!ludes a settle6ent on the issue

of ownershipB

II. >hether the Torrens title over the disputed properties was

!ollaterall# atta!ed in the a!tion for partitionB and

III. >hether respondent is estopped fro6 repudiatin !oownershipover the su3Ge!t realties.

>e find the petition 3ereft of 6erit.

Our dis?uisition in "uni!ipalit# of :i7an v. -ar!ia%$is definitive. There, we

eplained that the deter6ination as to the eisten!e of !oownership is

ne!essar# in the resolution of an a!tion for partition. Thus=

The first phase of a partition andor a!!ountin suit is taen up with the

deter6ination of whether or not a !oownership in fa!t eists, and a partition

is proper *i.e., not otherwise leall# pros!ri3ed+ and 6a# 3e 6ade 3#

voluntar# aree6ent of all the parties interested in the propert#. This phase

6a# end with a de!laration that plaintiff is not entitled to have a partition

either 3e!ause a !oownership does not eist, or partition is leall#

prohi3ited. It 6a# end, on the other hand, with an adGud6ent that a !o

ownership does in truth eist, partition is proper in the pre6ises and an

a!!ountin of rents and profits re!eived 3# the defendant fro6 the real estate

in ?uestion is in order.

The se!ond phase !o66en!es when it appears that Athe parties are una3le to

aree upon the partitionA dire!ted 3# the !ourt. In that eventH, partition shall

3e done for the parties 3# the H!ourt with the assistan!e of not 6ore than

three *'+ !o66issioners. This se!ond stae 6a# well also deal with the

rendition of the a!!ountin itself and its approval 3# the H!ourt after the

parties have 3een a!!orded opportunit# to 3e heard thereon, and an award

for the re!over# 3# the part# or parties thereto entitled of their Gust share in

the rents and profits of the real estate in ?uestion. %8*E6phasis

supplied.+

>hile it is true that the !o6plaint involved here is one for partition, the sa6e

is pre6ised on the eisten!e or noneisten!e of !oownership 3etween the

parties. Petitioner insists she is a !oowner pro indiviso of the five real estate

properties 3ased on the transfer !ertifi!ates of title *TCTs+ !overin the

su3Ge!t properties. Respondent 6aintains otherwise. Indu3ita3l#, therefore,

until and unless this issue of !oownership is definitel# and finall# resolved, it

would 3e pre6ature to effe!t a partition of the disputed properties. '&"ore

i6portantl#, the !o6plaint will not even lie if the !lai6ant, or petitioner in this

!ase, does not even have an# rihtful interest over the su3Ge!t properties. '(

>ould a resolution on the issue of ownership su3Ge!t the Torrens title issuedover the disputed realties to a !ollateral atta! "ost definitel#, it would not.

There is no dispute that a Torrens !ertifi!ate of title !annot 3e !ollaterall#

atta!ed,'%3ut that rule is not 6aterial to the !ase at 3ar. >hat !annot 3e

!ollaterall# atta!ed is the !ertifi!ate of title and not the title itself.''The

!ertifi!ate referred to is that do!u6ent issued 3# the Reister of Deeds nown

as the TCT. In !ontrast, the title referred to 3# law 6eans ownership whi!h is,

6ore often than not, represented 3# that do!u6ent. '4Petitioner apparentl#

!onfuses title with the !ertifi!ate of title. Title as a !on!ept of ownership

should not 3e !onfused with the !ertifi!ate of title as eviden!e of su!h

ownership althouh 3oth are inter!hanea3l# used.'5

"oreover, pla!in a par!el of land under the 6antle of the Torrens s#ste6

does not 6ean that ownership thereof !an no loner 3e disputed. Ownership

is different fro6 a !ertifi!ate of title, the latter onl# servin as the 3est proof

of ownership over a pie!e of land. The !ertifi!ate !annot alwa#s 3e !onsidered

as !on!lusive eviden!e of ownership.'/In fa!t, 6ere issuan!e of the !ertifi!ate

of title in the na6e of an# person does not fore!lose the possi3ilit# that the

real propert# 6a# 3e under !oownership with persons not na6ed in the

!ertifi!ate, or that the reistrant 6a# onl# 3e a trustee, or that other parties

6a# have a!?uired interest over the propert# su3se?uent to the issuan!e of

the !ertifi!ate of title.'0

Needless to sa#, reistration does not vest ownershipover a propert#, 3ut 6a# 3e the 3est eviden!e thereof.1avvphi1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_165427_2011.html#fnt37

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

9/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |9

1ERE

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

10/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |10

G.R. No. 1743 -u# 27, 2011

$ASIMIRO &E*ELO)MEN+ $OR)ORA+ION,Petitioner,vs.

RENA+O L. MA+EO,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

BERSAMIN,J.:

The fo!us of this appeal is the faith that should 3e a!!orded to the Torrens

title that the seller holds at the ti6e of the sale.

In its de!ision pro6ulated on )uust '(, %&&/, (the Court of )ppeals *C)+

de!lared that the respondent and his three 3rothers were the rihtful owners

of the land in litis, and dire!ted the Offi!e of the Reister of Deeds of 2as

Pi7as Cit# to !an!el the transfer !ertifi!ate of title *TCT+ reistered under the

na6e of petitioner Casi6iro Develop6ent Corporation *CDC+ and to issue in

its pla!e another TCT in favor of the respondent and his three 3rothers.

There3#, the C) reversed the Gud6ent of the Reional Trial Court *RTC+

rendered on "a# 8, %&&& *dis6issin the respondent;s !o6plaint for ?uietin

of title and re!onve#an!e upon a findin that CDC had 3een a 3u#er in ood

faith of the land in litis and that the respondent;s suit had alread# 3een ti6e

3arred+.

)rieved, CDC 3rouht its petition for review on !ertiorari.

Atee!ets

The su3Ge!t of this !ase is a reistered par!el of land *propert#+ with an area

of /,/8' s?uare 6eters, 6ore or less, lo!ated in :arrio Pulan 2upa, 2as

Pi7as Cit#, that was oriinall# owned 3# Isaias 2ara,%the respondent;s

6aternal randfather. pon the death of Isaias 2ara in (8'&, the propert#

passed on to his !hildren, na6el#= "iuela, Perfe!ta and

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

11/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |11

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

12/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |12

(. Hsi! and all persons !lai6in rihtHs under it to va!ate the su3Ge!t

pre6ises lo!ated at Pulan 2upa I, 2as Pi7as, "etro "anila and

surrender the possession of the sa6e to herein plaintiffB

%. to pa# the plaintiff reasona3le !o6pensation for the use and

o!!upation of the su3Ge!t pre6ises here3# fied at *P(&&.&&+ one

hundred pesos a 6onth startin Nove63er %%, (88& *the ti6e whenthe de6and letter to va!ate was iven+ until defendants a!tuall#

va!ate the propert#B

No pronoun!e6ent as to !osts and attorne#;s fees.

SO ORDERED.4

The de!ision of the "eTC was assailed in the RTC via petition for !ertiorari

and prohi3ition. The RTC resolved aainst CDC, and held that the "eTC had

a!ted without Gurisdi!tion 3e!ause the land, 3ein a fishpond, was

ari!ulturalB hen!e, the dispute was within the e!lusive Gurisdi!tion of theD)R): pursuant to Repu3li! )!t No. //50 *Co6prehensive )rarian Refor6

2aw of (8$$+.5

CDC appealed to the C), whi!h, on @anuar# %5, (88/, found in favor of CDC,

de!larin that the "eTC had Gurisdi!tion. )s a result, the C) reinstated the

de!ision of the "eTC./

On appeal *-.R. No. (%$'8%+, the Court affir6ed the C);s de!ision in favor of

CDC, rulin thusl#=

>1ERE1ERE

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

13/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |13

SO ORDERED.8

The C) denied CDC;s 6otion for re!onsideration.

1en!e, this appeal, in whi!h CDC ures that the C) !o66itted serious errors

of law,(&as follows=

*)+ in failin to rule that the de!ree of reistration over the

Su3Ge!t Propert# is in!ontroverti3le and no loner open to review or

atta! after the lapse of one *(+ #ear fro6 entr# of su!h de!ree of

reistration in favor of 2aura "ateo de Castro.

*:+ in failin to rule that the present a!tion is liewise 3arred 3#

res Gudi!ata.

*C+ in failin to rule that the instant a!tion for ?uietin of title and

re!onve#an!e under PD No. (5%8 !annot prosper 3e!ause the Su3Ge!t

Propert# had alread# 3een !onve#ed and transferred to third partieswho !lai6ed adverse title for the6selves.

*D+ in failin to rule that the a!tion of respondent for A?uietin of

title, re!onve#an!e and da6aesA is 3arred 3# la!hes.

*E+ in rulin that the Su3Ge!t Propert# 6ust 3e re!onve#ed to

respondent 3e!ause petitioner Casi6iro Develop6ent Corporation is

not a Apur!haser in ood faith.A

CDC arues that it was a 3u#er in ood faithB and that the C) did not rule on

6atters that fortified its title in the propert#, na6el#= *a+ the

in!ontroverti3ilit# of the title of 2auraB *3+ the a!tion 3ein 3arred 3# la!hes

and res Gudi!ataB and *!+ the propert# havin 3een !onve#ed to third parties

who had then !lai6ed adverse title.

The respondent !ounters that CDC a!?uired the propert# fro6 China :an in

3ad faith, 3e!ause it had a!tual nowlede of the possession of the propert#

3# the respondent and his si3linsB that CDC did not a!tuall# a!!ept deliver#

of the possession of the propert# fro6 China :anB and that CDC inored the

failure of China :an to warrant its title.

Rulin

>e rant the petition.

(.

Indefeasi3ilit# of title in the na6e of 2aura

)s 3asis for re!overin the possession of the propert#, the respondent hasassailed the title of 2aura.

>e !annot sustain the respondent.

There is no dou3t that the land in ?uestion, althouh on!e a part of the pu3li!

do6ain, has alread# 3een pla!ed under the Torrens s#ste6 of land

reistration. The -overn6ent is re?uired under the Torrens s#ste6 of

reistration to issue an offi!ial !ertifi!ate of title to attest to the fa!t that the

person na6ed in the !ertifi!ate is the owner of the propert# therein

des!ri3ed, su3Ge!t to su!h liens and en!u63ran!es as thereon noted or what

the law warrants or reserves.((The o3Ge!tive is to o3viate possi3le !onfli!ts oftitle 3# ivin the pu3li! the riht to rel# upon the fa!e of the Torrens

!ertifi!ate and to dispense, as a rule, with the ne!essit# of in?uirin further.

The Torrens s#ste6 ives the reistered owner !o6plete pea!e of 6ind, in

order that he will 3e se!ured in his ownership as lon as he has not

voluntaril# disposed of an# riht over the !overed land.(%

The -overn6ent has adopted the Torrens s#ste6 due to its 3ein the 6ost

effe!tive 6easure to uarantee the interit# of land titles and to prote!t their

indefeasi3ilit# on!e the !lai6 of ownership is esta3lished and re!oniJed. If a

person pur!hases a pie!e of land on the assuran!e that the seller;s title

thereto is valid, he should not run the ris of 3ein told later that hisa!?uisition was ineffe!tual after all, whi!h will not onl# 3e unfair to hi6 as the

pur!haser, 3ut will also erode pu3li! !onfiden!e in the s#ste6 and will for!e

land transa!tions to 3e attended 3# !o6pli!ated and not ne!essaril#

!on!lusive investiations and proof of ownership. The further !onse?uen!e

will 3e that land !onfli!ts !an 3e even 6ore a3rasive, if not even violent. The

-overn6ent, re!oniJin the worth# purposes of the Torrens s#ste6, should

3e the first to a!!ept the validit# of titles issued thereunder on!e the

!onditions laid down 3# the law are satisfied.('

et, reistration under the Torrens s#ste6, not 3ein a 6ode of a!?uirin

ownership, does not !reate or vest title.(4The Torrens !ertifi!ate of title is

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_175485_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_175485_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_175485_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_175485_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_175485_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_175485_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_175485_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_175485_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_175485_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_175485_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_175485_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_175485_2011.html#fnt14

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

14/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |14

6erel# an eviden!e of ownership or title in the parti!ular propert# des!ri3ed

therein.(5In that sense, the issuan!e of the !ertifi!ate of title to a parti!ular

person does not pre!lude the possi3ilit# that persons not na6ed in the

!ertifi!ate 6a# 3e !oowners of the real propert# therein des!ri3ed with the

person na6ed therein, or that the reistered owner 6a# 3e holdin the

propert# in trust for another person.(/

Nonetheless, it is essential that title reistered under the Torrens s#ste6

3e!o6es indefeasi3le and in!ontroverti3le.(0

The land in ?uestion has 3een !overed 3# a Torrens !ertifi!ate of title *OCT

No. /'$/ in the na6e of 2aura, and its derivative !ertifi!ates+ 3efore CDC

3e!a6e the reistered owner 3# pur!hase fro6 China :an. In all that ti6e,

neither the respondent nor his si3lins opposed the transa!tions !ausin the

various transfers. In fa!t, the respondent ad6itted in his !o6plaint that the

reistration of the land in the na6e of 2aura alone had 3een with the

nowlede and upon the aree6ent of the entire 2ara"ateo fa6il#. It is

unthina3le, therefore, that the respondent, full# aware of the e!lusivereistration in her sister 2aura;s na6e, allowed 6ore than %& #ears to pass

3efore assertin his !lai6 of ownership for the first ti6e throuh this !ase in

6id(884. "ain it worse for hi6 is that he did so onl# after CDC had

!o66en!ed the eGe!t6ent !ase aainst his own si3lins.

>orth# of 6ention is that Candido, @r., 2eonardo, and Cesar;s defense in the

eGe!t6ent !ase 3rouht 3# CDC aainst the6 was not predi!ated on a !lai6

of their ownership of the propert#, 3ut on their 3ein ari!ultural lessees or

tenants of CDC. Even that defense was ulti6atel# reGe!ted 3# this Court 3#

o3servin in -.R. No. (%$'8% as follows=

>ith reard to the first ele6ent, the petitioners have tried to prove that the#

are tenants or ari!ultural lessees of the respondent !orporation, CDC, 3#

showin that the land was oriinall# owned 3# their randfather, Isaias 2ara,

who ave the6 per6ission to wor the land, and that CDC is 6erel# a

su!!essorininterest of their randfather. It 6ust 3e noted that the

petitioners failed to ade?uatel# prove their randfather;s ownership of the

land. The# 6erel# showed si ta de!larations. It has 3een held 3# this Court

that, as aainst a transfer !ertifi!ate of title, ta de!larations or re!eipts are

not ade?uate proofs of ownership. -rantin aruendo that the land was reall#

owned 3# the petitioners; randfather, petitioners did not even atte6pt to

show how the land went fro6 the patri6on# of their randfather to that of

CDC.

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

15/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |15

The C) plainl# erred in so findin aainst CDC.

To start with, one who deals with propert# reistered under the Torrens

s#ste6 need not o 3e#ond the !ertifi!ate of title, 3ut onl# has to rel# on the

!ertifi!ate of title.%(1e is !hared with noti!e onl# of su!h 3urdens and !lai6s

as are annotated on the title.%%The pertinent law on the 6atter of 3urdens

and !lai6s is Se!tion 44 of the Propert# Reistration De!ree,

%'

whi!hprovides=

Se!tion 44. Statutor# liens affe!tin title. Q Ever# reistered owner re!eivin

a !ertifi!ate of title in pursuan!e of a de!ree of reistration, and ever#

su3se?uent pur!haser of reistered land tain a !ertifi!ate of title for value

and in ood faith, shall hold the sa6e free fro6 all en!u63ran!es e!ept

those noted on said !ertifi!ate and an# of the followin en!u63ran!es whi!h

6a# 3e su3sistin, na6el#=

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

16/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |16

) pur!haser in ood faith is one who 3u#s propert# of another, without noti!e

that so6e other person has a riht to, or interest in, su!h propert# and pa#s

a full and fair pri!e for the sa6e, at the ti6e of su!h pur!hase, or 3efore he

has noti!e of the !lai6 or interest of so6e other persons in the propert#. 1e

3u#s the propert# with the 3elief that the person fro6 who6 he re!eives the

thin was the owner and !ould !onve# title to the propert#. ) pur!haser

!annot !lose his e#es to fa!ts whi!h should put a reasona3le 6an on his

uard and still !lai6 he a!ted in ood faith.

>1ERE

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

17/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |17

G.R. No. 16722 -u# 1, 2005

&.B.+. MARBA $ONS+R$+ION, IN$OR)ORA+E&,Petitioner,vs.

RI$ARE&O )ANES, ANGELI+O )ANES, SAL*A&OR $EA, ABOGA&OMA+IN, &ONAR&O )A$LIBAR, 8OSIMO )ERAL+A '! HILARIONMANONG&O,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

NA$HRA,J.:

:efore this Court is a Petition(for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the

Rules of Civil Pro!edure, assailin the Court of )ppeals *C)+ De!ision %dated

O!to3er %5, %&&4 whi!h reversed and set aside the Order'of the Reional

Trial Court *RTC+ of FueJon Cit#, :ran!h %(/, dated Nove63er $, %&&(.

The

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

18/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |18

in!luded portions of the su3Ge!t propert#, were derived fro6 TCT No. %&&5(8.

1owever, TCT No. %&&5(8 onl# !overed 2ot 5&' of the Tala Estate with an

area of Twent#Two Thousand Si 1undred

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

19/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |19

a!?uired 3# pres!ription or adverse possession 3e!ause it is !overed 3# TCT

No. %&&5(8.

>hile the said "otion for Re!onsideration was pendin, @ude :a!alla passed

awa#.

"eanwhile, on @anuar# %, %&&(, a "otion%/

for Intervention and a Co6plaintin Intervention were filed 3# )tt#. )ndres :. Pulu63arit *)tt#. Pulu63arit+,

representin the Don PedroDon @ose de O!a6po Estate. The intervenor

alleed that the su3Ge!t propert# for6ed part of the vast tra!t of land with an

area of ((0,&&& he!tares, !overed 3# Oriinal Certifi!ate of Title *OCT+ No.

008 issued 3# the 1onora3le Nor3erto Ro6ualdeJ on "ar!h (4, (8(' under

De!ree No. (&('8, whi!h 3elons to the Estate of Don PedroDon @ose de

O!a6po. Thus, the Co6plaint%0in Intervention pra#ed that the RTC;s De!ision

3e re!onsideredB that the leiti6a!# and superiorit# of OCT 008 3e upheldB

and that the su3Ge!t propert# 3e de!lared as 3elonin to the Estate of Don

PedroDon @ose de O!a6po.

In its Order%$dated "ar!h (', %&&(, the RTC, throuh )!tin @ude "odesto

C. @uanson *@ude @uanson+, denied )tt#. Pulu63arit;s "otion for Intervention

3e!ause a Gud6ent had alread# 3een rendered pursuant to Se!tion %,%8Rule

(8 of the (880 Rules of Civil Pro!edure.

On )pril (&, %&&(, the RTC issued an Order '&statin that there appeared to

3e a need for a !larifi!ator# hearin 3efore it !ould a!t on D:TKs "otion for

Re!onsideration. Thus, a hearin was held on "a# (0, %&&(. Thereafter,

supple6ental 6e6oranda were re?uired of the parties.'(:oth parties

!o6plied.'%1owever, havin found that the oriinal !op# of TCT No. %&&5(8

was not su36itted to it for !o6parison with the photo!op# thereof on file, theRTC dire!ted D:T to present the oriinal or !ertified true !op# of the TCT on

)uust %(, %&&(.''Respondents 6oved to re!onsider the said dire!tive'43ut

the sa6e was denied.'5D:T, on the other hand, 6anifested that a !op# of

TCT No. %&&5(8, !onsistin of (0 paes, had alread# 3een ad6itted in

eviden!eB and that 3e!ause of the fire in the Offi!e of the RD in FueJon Cit#

so6eti6e in (8$$, D:T, despite dilient effort, !ould not se!ure an oriinal or

!ertified true !op# of said TCT. Instead, D:T su36itted a !ertified true !op# of

Consolidated Su3division Plan P!s ($'45.'/

On Nove63er $, %&&(, the RTC, throuh @ude @uanson, issued an

Order'0

reversin the earlier RTC De!ision and dis6issin the Co6plaint forla! of 6erit. The RTC held that pres!ription does not run aainst reistered

landB hen!e, a title on!e reistered !annot 3e defeated even 3# adverse, open

or notorious possession. "oreover, the RTC opined that even if the su3Ge!t

propert# !ould 3e a!?uired 3# pres!ription, respondentsK a!tion was alread#

3arred 3# pres!ription andor la!hes 3e!ause the# never asserted their rihts

when :.C. Realado reistered the su3Ge!t propert# in (804B and later

developed, su3divided and sold the sa6e to individual lot 3u#ers.

On De!e63er ($, %&&(, respondents filed a "otion for

Re!onsideration'$whi!h the RTC denied in its Order'8dated @une (0, %&&%.

)rieved, respondents appealed to the C).4&

The C)Ks Rulin

On O!to3er %5, %&&4, the C) reversed and set aside the RTC Orders dated

Nove63er $, %&&( and @une (0, %&&% and reinstated the RTC De!ision dated

@une (5, %&&&. The C) held that the properties des!ri3ed and in!luded in TCT

No. %&&5(8 are lo!ated in San

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

20/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |20

PETITIONERKS ER IS NOT )

>)IER O< SC1 DEhi!h 3etween D:T and the respondents have a 3etter riht over

the su3Ge!t propert#

Our Rulin

>e answer the first ?uestion in the affir6ative.

It is true that in Dino v. Court of )ppeals45we ruled=

*T+rial !ourts have authorit# and dis!retion to dis6iss an a!tion on the round

of pres!ription when the partiesK pleadins or other fa!ts on re!ord show it to

3e indeed ti6e3arredB *hat is essential onl#, to repeat, is

that the fa!ts de6onstratin the lapse of the pres!riptive period 3e otherwise

suffi!ientl# and satisfa!toril# apparent on the re!ordB either in the aver6ents

of the plaintiffKs !o6plaint, or otherwise esta3lished 3# the eviden!e.

*E6phasis supplied+

Indeed, one of the inherent powers of !ourts is to a6end and !ontrol its

pro!esses so as to 6ae the6 !onfor6a3le to law and Gusti!e. This in!ludes

the riht to reverse itself, espe!iall# when in its opinion it has !o66itted an

error or 6istae in Gud6ent, and adheren!e to its de!ision would !ause

inGusti!e.4/Thus, the RTC in its Order dated Nove63er $, %&&( !ould validl#

entertain the defenses of pres!ription and la!hes in D:TKs 6otion for

re!onsideration.

1owever, the !on!lusion rea!hed 3# the RTC in its assailed Order was

erroneous. The RTC failed to !onsider that the a!tion filed 3efore it was not

si6pl# for re!onve#an!e 3ut an a!tion for ?uietin of title whi!h is

i6pres!ripti3le.

eril#, an a!tion for re!onve#an!e !an 3e 3arred 3# pres!ription. >hen an

a!tion for re!onve#an!e is 3ased on fraud, it 6ust 3e filed within four *4+

#ears fro6 dis!over# of the fraud, and su!h dis!over# is dee6ed to have

taen pla!e fro6 the issuan!e of the oriinal !ertifi!ate of title. On the other

hand, an a!tion for re!onve#an!e 3ased on an i6plied or !onstru!tive trust

pres!ri3es in ten *(&+ #ears fro6 the date of the issuan!e of the oriinal

!ertifi!ate of title or transfer !ertifi!ate of title. The rule is that the

reistration of an instru6ent in the Offi!e of the RD !onstitutes !onstru!tive

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt46

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

21/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |21

noti!e to the whole world and therefore the dis!over# of the fraud is dee6ed

to have taen pla!e at the ti6e of reistration.40lavvphil

1owever, the pres!riptive period applies onl# if there is an a!tual need to

re!onve# the propert# as when the plaintiff is not in possession of the

propert#. If the plaintiff, as the real owner of the propert# also re6ains in

possession of the propert#, the pres!riptive period to re!over title andpossession of the propert# does not run aainst hi6. In su!h a !ase, an

a!tion for re!onve#an!e, if nonetheless filed, would 3e in the nature of a suit

for ?uietin of title, an a!tion that is i6pres!ripti3le.4$Thus, in da. de

-ual3erto v. -o,48this Court held=

H)n a!tion for re!onve#an!e of a par!el of land 3ased on i6plied or

!onstru!tive trust pres!ri3es in ten #ears, the point of referen!e 3ein the

date of reistration of the deed or the date of the issuan!e of the !ertifi!ate of

title over the propert#, 3ut this rule applies onl# when the plaintiff or the

person enfor!in the trust is not in possession of the propert#, sin!e if a

person !lai6in to 3e the owner thereof is in a!tual possession of thepropert#, as the defendants are in the instant !ase, the riht to see

re!onve#an!e, whi!h in effe!t sees to ?uiet title to the propert#, does not

pres!ri3e. The reason for this is that one who is in a!tual possession of a

pie!e of land !lai6in to 3e the owner thereof 6a# wait until his possession is

distur3ed or his title is atta!ed 3efore tain steps to vindi!ate his riht, the

reason for the rule 3ein, that his undistur3ed possession ives hi6 a

!ontinuin riht to see the aid of a !ourt of e?uit# to as!ertain and

deter6ine the nature of the adverse !lai6 of a third part# and its effe!t on

his own title, whi!h riht !an 3e !lai6ed onl# 3# one who is in possession.

Insofar as Ri!aredo and his son, )nelito, are !on!erned, the# esta3lished intheir testi6onies that, for so6e ti6e, the# possessed the su3Ge!t propert#

and that )nelito 3ouht a house within the su3Ge!t propert# in (8$0. 5&Thus,

the respondents are proper parties to 3rin an a!tion for ?uietin of title

3e!ause persons havin leal, as well as e?uita3le, title to or interest in a real

propert# 6a# 3rin su!h a!tion, and AtitleA here does not ne!essaril# denote a

!ertifi!ate of title issued in favor of the person filin the suit.5(

)lthouh pres!ription and la!hes are distin!t !on!epts, we have held,

nonetheless, that in so6e instan!es, the do!trine of la!hes is inappli!a3le

where the a!tion was filed within the pres!riptive period provided 3# law.

Therefore, la!hes will not appl# to this !ase, 3e!ause respondentsK possessionof the su3Ge!t propert# has rendered their riht to 3rin an a!tion for ?uietin

of title i6pres!ripti3le and, hen!e, not 3arred 3# la!hes. "oreover, sin!e

la!hes is a !reation of e?uit#, a!ts or !ondu!t alleed to !onstitute the sa6e

6ust 3e intentional and une?uivo!al so as to avoid inGusti!e. 2a!hes will

operate not reall# to penaliJe nele!t or sleepin on oneKs rihts, 3ut rather

to avoid re!oniJin a riht when to do so would result in a !learl# ine?uita3le

situation.5%

)l3eit the !on!lusion of the RTC in its Order dated Nove63er $, %&&(, whi!h

dis6issed respondentsK !o6plaint on rounds of pres!ription and la!hes, 6a#

have 3een erroneous, we, nevertheless, resolve the se!ond ?uestion in favor

of D:T.

It is a wellentren!hed rule in this Gurisdi!tion that no title to reistered land

in deroation of the rihts of the reistered owner shall 3e a!?uired 3#

pres!ription or adverse possession.5'

)rti!le ((%/54of the Civil Code in !onne!tion with Se!tion 4/55of )!t No. 48/

*The 2and Reistration )!t+, as a6ended 3# Se!tion 405/

of P.D. No. (5%8*The Propert# Reistration De!ree+, !learl# supports this rule. Pres!ription is

unavailin not onl# aainst the reistered owner 3ut also aainst his

hereditar# su!!essors. Possession is a 6ere !onse?uen!e of ownership where

land has 3een reistered under the Torrens s#ste6, the effi!a!# and interit#

of whi!h 6ust 3e prote!ted. Pres!ription is rihtl# rearded as a statute of

repose whose o3Ge!tive is to suppress fraudulent and stale !lai6s fro6

sprinin up at reat distan!es of ti6e and surprisin the parties or their

representatives when the fa!ts have 3e!o6e o3s!ure fro6 the lapse of ti6e

or the defe!tive 6e6or# or death or re6oval of witnesses.50

Thus, respondentsK !lai6 of a!?uisitive pres!ription over the su3Ge!t propert#is 3aseless. nder )rti!le ((%/ of the Civil Code, a!?uisitive pres!ription of

ownership of lands reistered under the 2and Reistration )!t shall 3e

overned 3# spe!ial laws. Correlativel#, )!t No. 48/, as a6ended 3# PD No.

(5%8, provides that no title to reistered land in deroation of that of the

reistered owner shall 3e a!?uired 3# adverse possession. Conse?uentl#, in

the instant !ase, proof of possession 3# the respondents is i66aterial and

in!onse?uential.5$

"oreover, it 6a# 3e stressed that there was no a6ple proof that D:T

parti!ipated in the alleed fraud. >hile fa!tual issues are ad6ittedl# not

within the provin!e of this Court, as it is not a trier of fa!ts and is notre?uired to reea6ine or !ontrast the oral and do!u6entar# eviden!e anew,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_167232_2009.html#fnt58

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

22/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |22

we have the authorit# to review and, in proper !ases, reverse the fa!tual

findins of lower !ourts when the findins of fa!t of the trial !ourt are in

!onfli!t with those of the appellate !ourt. 58In this reard, we reviewed the

re!ords of this !ase and found no !lear eviden!e that D:T parti!ipated in the

fraudulent s!he6e. In Repu3li! v. Court of )ppeals, /&this Court ave due

i6portan!e to the fa!t that the private respondent therein did not parti!ipate

in the fraud averred. >e a!!ord the sa6e 3enefit to D:T in this !ase. To add,

D:T is an inno!ent pur!haser for value and ood faith whi!h, throuh a

da!ion en pao dul# entered into with :.C. Realado, a!?uired

ownership over the su3Ge!t propert#, and whose rihts 6ust 3e prote!ted

under Se!tion '%/(of P.D. No. (5%8.

Da!ion en pao is the deliver# and trans6ission of ownership of a thin 3#

the de3tor to the !reditor as an a!!epted e?uivalent of the perfor6an!e of the

o3liation. It is a spe!ial 6ode of pa#6ent where the de3tor offers another

thin to the !reditor, who a!!epts it as an e?uivalent of the pa#6ent of an

outstandin de3t. In its 6odern !on!ept, what a!tuall# taes pla!e in da!ionen pao is an o3Ge!tive novation of the o3liation where the thin offered as

an a!!epted e?uivalent of the perfor6an!e of an o3liation is !onsidered as

the o3Ge!t of the !ontra!t of sale, while the de3t is !onsidered as the

pur!hase pri!e./%

It 6ust also 3e noted that portions of the su3Ge!t propert# had alread# 3een

sold to third persons who, lie D:T, are inno!ent pur!hasers in ood faith and

for value, rel#in on the !ertifi!ates of title shown to the6, and who had no

nowlede of an# defe!t in the title of the vendor, or of fa!ts suffi!ient to

indu!e a reasona3l# prudent 6an to in?uire into the status of the su3Ge!t

propert#.

/'

To disreard these !ir!u6stan!es si6pl# on the 3asis of alleed!ontinuous and adverse possession of respondents would not onl# 3e ini6i!al

to the rihts of the afore6entioned titleholders, 3ut would ulti6atel# wrea

havo! on the sta3ilit# of the Torrens s#ste6 of reistration.

) final note.

>hile the Torrens s#ste6 is not a 6ode of a!?uirin title, 3ut 6erel# a

s#ste6 of reistration of titles to lands, Gusti!e and e?uit# de6and that the

titleholder should not 3e 6ade to 3ear the unfavora3le effe!t of the 6istae

or nelien!e of the StateKs aents, in the a3sen!e of proof of his !o6pli!it#

in a fraud or of 6anifest da6ae to third persons. The real purpose of theTorrens s#ste6 is to ?uiet title to land and put a stop forever to an# ?uestion

as to the lealit# of the title, e!ept !lai6s that were noted in the !ertifi!ate

at the ti6e of the reistration or that 6a# arise su3se?uent thereto.

Otherwise, the interit# of the Torrens s#ste6 would forever 3e sullied 3# the

ineptitude and ineffi!ien!# of land reistration offi!ials, who are ordinaril#

presu6ed to have reularl# perfor6ed their duties./4Thus, where inno!ent

third persons, rel#in on the !orre!tness of the !ertifi!ate of title thus issued,

a!?uire rihts over the propert#, the !ourt !annot disreard those rihts and

order the !an!ellation of the !ertifi!ate. The effe!t of su!h outriht

!an!ellation will 3e to i6pair pu3li! !onfiden!e in the !ertifi!ate of title. The

san!tit# of the Torrens s#ste6 6ust 3e preservedB otherwise, ever#one

dealin with the propert# reistered under the s#ste6 will have to in?uire in

ever# instan!e on whether the title had 3een reularl# or irreularl# issued,

!ontrar# to the evident purpose of the law. Ever# person dealin with the

reistered land 6a# safel# rel# on the !orre!tness of the !ertifi!ate of title

issued therefor, and the law will in no wa# o3lie hi6 to o 3ehind the

!ertifi!ate to deter6ine the !ondition of the propert#./5

>1ERE

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

23/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |23

G.R. No. 1666 Fe"ru'r# 15, 2003

RAMN&O '! )ERLA &E G8MAN, petitioners,vs.

)RAXI&ES -. AGBAGALA,respondent.

& E $ I S I O N

$ORONA, J.9

This is a petition for review on !ertiorari(of a de!ision%and resolution'of the

Court of )ppeals *C)+ dated O!to3er (4, %&&' and )pril %&, %&&4,

respe!tivel#, in C)-.R. C No. 55%'$ whi!h affir6ed the de!ision of the

Reional Trial Court *RTC+, 2ina#en, Panasinan, :ran!h '0 dated "a# '&,

(88/ in Civil Case No. (/5(/.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_163566_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_163566_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_163566_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_163566_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_163566_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_163566_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_163566_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_163566_2008.html#fnt3

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

24/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |24

The spouses Elias P. @avier and "aria Sison died on "a# $, (84% and @ul#

(8'/, respe!tivel#, 3oth in 2ina#en, Panasinan. The# were survived 3# their

si !hildren, na6el#= Conrado @avier, respondent Praides @avier )3aala,

Ni!asio @avier, Car6en @avier, En!arna!ion @avier Onno#4and @uana @avier.

The# left (' par!els of land whi!h their !hildren inherited and divided a6on

the6selves in a pu3li! do!u6ent of etraGudi!ial partition dated @une %8,

(84$.

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

25/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |25

Se!tions '% and 4$ of PD (5%8 state=

Se!. '%. Review of de!ree of reistrationB Inno!ent pur!haser for

value. The de!ree of reistration shall not 3e reopened or revised

3# reason of a3sen!e, 6inorit#, or other disa3ilit# of an# person

adversel# affe!ted there3#, nor 3# an# pro!eedin in an# !ourt for

reversin Gud6ent, su3Ge!t, however, to the riht of an# person,

in!ludin the overn6ent and the 3ran!hes thereof, deprived of land

or of an# estate or interest therein 3# su!h adGudi!ation or

!onfir6ation of title o3tained 3# a!tual fraud, to file in the proper

H!ourt a petition for reopenin and review of the de!ree of

reistration not later than one #ear fro6 and after the date of the

entr# of su!h de!ree of reistration, 3ut in no !ase shall su!h petition

3e entertained 3# the !ourt where an inno!ent pur!haser for value

has a!?uired the land or an interest therein whose rihts 6a# 3e

preGudi!ed. >henever the phrase Ainno!ent pur!haser for valueA or an

e?uivalent phrase o!!urs in this De!ree, it shall 3e dee6ed to in!lude

an inno!ent lessee, 6ortaee, or other en!u63ran!er for value.

po t(e e:p/r't/o o; s'/! per/o! o; oe #e'r, t(e !eree o;reg/str't/o '! t(e ert/;/'te o; t/te /ssue! s(' "eo

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

26/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |26

Sin!e the Dire!tor of 2ands has no authorit# to rant a free patent over

privatel# owned land, an# title issued pursuant thereto is null and void.'&

Therefore, althouh OCT No. P'&($0 was 6erel# !ollaterall# atta!ed, it was

still !orre!tl# nullified 3e!ause the free patent on whi!h it was 3ased was null

and void a$ initio.

@HEREFORE, the petition is here3# &ENIE&.The O!to3er (4, %&&' de!isionand )pril %&, %&&4 resolution of the Court of )ppeals in C)-.R. C No.

55%'$ are AFFIRME&.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_163566_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_163566_2008.html#fnt30

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

27/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |27

G.R. No. 161 -u# 13, 2011

&A+ IRAM SAM)A$O, su"st/tute! "# HA&-I SORAA S.MA$ABAN&O,Petitioner,vs.

HA&-I SERA& MING$A LAN+&,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

)ERAL+A,J.:

This is a petition for review on !ertiorari of the Court of )ppeals; De!ision

dated )uust (5, %&&' in C)-.R. C No. /'$&( and its Resolution dated "a#

(', %&&4, den#in petitioner;s 6otion for re!onsideration.

The fa!ts, as stated 3# the Court of )ppeals, are as follows=

On Septe63er (4, (8$4, respondent 1adGi Serad "in!a 2antud, the plaintiff

in the lower !ourt, filed an a!tion to ?uiet title with da6aes(with the

Reional Trial Court *RTC+ of 2anao del Sur, :ran!h $, "arawi Cit# *trial

!ourt+, aainst petitioner Datu 9ira6 Sa6pa!o *de!eased+, the defendant in

the lower !ourt, who has 3een su3stituted 3# his heirs, represented 3# 1adGi

Sora#a Sa6pa!o"a!a3ando.%

Respondent alleed in his Co6plaint'that he is the owner in fee si6ple of a

par!el of residential lot lo!ated at "arinaut, "arawi Cit#, with an area of $80

s?uare 6eters !overed 3# Oriinal Certifi!ate of Title *OCT+ No. P/5$. On

)uust %5, (8$4, petitioner Datu 9ira6 Sa6pa!o, throuh his dauhter

Sora#a Sa6pa!o"a!a3ando with several ar6ed 6en, for!i3l# and unlawfull#

entered his propert# and destro#ed the nurser# 3uildins, !a33ae seedlins

and other i6prove6ents therein worth P(&,&&&.&&. On )uust '&, (8$4,

:arana# Captain 1adGi 1assan )3ato and his !oun!il6en prepared and

issued a de!ision4in writin statin that petitioner Datu 9ira6 Sa6pa!o is the

owner of the su3Ge!t par!el of land. Respondent stated that the a!ts of

petitioner and the said de!ision of the :arana# Captain 6a# !ast a !loud

over or otherwise preGudi!e his title. Respondent stated that he and his

prede!essorsininterest have 3een in open, pu3li! and e!lusive possession

of the su3Ge!t propert#. 1e pra#ed that the a!ts of petitioner and the de!ision

of :arana# Captain 1adGi 1assan )3ato and his !oun!il6en 3e de!lared

invalid, and that petitioner 3e ordered to pa# respondent da6aes in the

a6ount ofP(&,&&&.&& and attorne#;s fees.

In his )nswer,5defendant Datu 9ira6 Sa6pa!o, petitioner herein, denied the

6aterial alleations of the Co6plaint. Petitioner asserted that he and his

prede!essorsininterest are the ones who had 3een in open, pu3li!,

!ontinuous, and e!lusive possession of the propert# in dispute. Petitioner

alleed that OCT No. P/5$ was se!ured in violation of laws and throuh

fraud, de!eption and 6isrepresentation, !onsiderin that the su3Ge!t par!el of

land is a residential lot and the title issued is a free patent. "oreover,

respondent and his prede!essorsininterest had never taen a!tual

possession or o!!upied the land under litiation. On the !ontrar#, petitioner

has all the eviden!e of a!tual possession and ownership of per6anent

i6prove6ents and other plants on the land in dispute.

Petitioner filed a !ounter!lai6 for a!tual and 6oral da6aes, and attorne#Ks

fees for the unfounded !o6plaint and pra#ed for its dis6issal. 1e also souht

the !an!ellation of respondent;s OCT No. P/5$ and the re!onve#an!e of the

su3Ge!t par!el of land.

Durin the trial, respondent 1adGi 2antud testified that he a!?uired the

su3Ge!t lot fro6 his rand6other, Intu6o Pasidan, a portion thereof fro6 his

rand6other;s helper, Totop "ala!op, pursuant to a !ourt de!ision after

litiatin with hi6./Respondent had 3een residin on the lot for 6ore than '&

#ears, applied for a title thereto and was issued OCT No. P/5$. 01e paid the

!orrespondin real estate taes for the land.$1e planted assorted trees and

plants on the lot lie 3ananas, Ga!fruits, !o!onuts and others.81e testified

that he was not aware of the alleed litiation over the lot 3efore :arana#

Captain 1adGi 1assan )3ato, althouh he was furnished a !op# of the

de!ision.(&

On the other hand, petitioner Datu 9ira6 Sa6pa!o testified that the land

under litiation is onl# a portion of the (,$&& s?uare 6eters of land that heinherited in (85% fro6 his father, Datu Sa6pa!o -u3at.((Sin!e then, he had

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_163551_2011.html#fnt11

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

28/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |28

3een in adverse possession and ownership of the su3Ge!t lot, !ultivatin and

plantin trees and plants throuh his !aretaer 1adGi "ustapha

"a!awadi3.(%In (8/%, he 6ortaed the land *(,$&& s?uare 6eters+ with the

Develop6ent :an of the Philippines, OJa6is 3ran!h.('1e de!lared the land

*(,$&& s?uare 6eters+ for taation purposes(4and paid real estate taes, and

addu!ed in eviden!e the latest Ta Re!eipt No. (05/'$/ dated Septe63er (5,

(8H8'.(5Petitioner presented four !orro3oratin witnesses as reards his

possession of the su3Ge!t propert#.

)fter trial on the 6erits, the trial !ourt rendered a De!ision on "ar!h '(,

(888 in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of whi!h reads=

>1ERE

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

29/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |29

The Court of )ppeals stated that the Torrens title has three attri3utes= *(+ a

Torrens title is the 3est eviden!e of ownership over reistered land and,

unless annulled in an appropriate pro!eedin, the title is !on!lusive on the

issue of ownershipB *%+ a Torrens title is in!ontroverti3le and indefeasi3le

upon the epiration of one #ear fro6 the date of the entr# of the de!ree of

reistrationB%&and *'+ a Torrens title is not su3Ge!t to !ollateral atta!. %(

The Court of )ppeals held that petitioner;s !ounter!lai6 filed on O!to3er (5,

(8$4 for !an!ellation of respondent;s oriinal !ertifi!ate of title issued on "a#

%%, (8$( was filed 3e#ond the statutor# one#ear periodB hen!e, petitioner;s

title had 3e!o6e indefeasi3le, and !annot 3e affe!ted 3# the de!ision 6ade

3# :arana# Captain 1adGi 1assan )3ato and his !oun!il6en. "oreover, the

appellate !ourt held that petitioner;s pra#er for the !an!ellation of

respondent;s title, OCT No. P/5$, throuh a !ounter!lai6 in!luded in his

)nswer is a !ollateral atta!, whi!h the law does not allow,

!itin Ci"afranca v. Court of !ppeals%%and %atalia Realt# Corporation v.

&aldez.%'

The alleation of fraud in se!urin OCT No. P/5$ on the round that the

propert# in dispute is a residential lot and not su3Ge!t of a free patent was not

iven weiht 3# the appellate !ourt as it was supported onl# 3# testi6onial

eviden!e that did not show how *3# 6etes and 3ounds+ and wh# the propert#

in dispute !ould not have 3een the su3Ge!t of a free patent. The appellate

!ourt stated that a 6ere preponderan!e of eviden!e is not ade?uate to prove

fraudB%4it 6ust 3e esta3lished 3# !lear and !onvin!in eviden!e.

The Court of )ppeals also noted that petitioner !lai6ed that the su3Ge!t

propert# is onl# part of his larer propert#. )lthouh petitioner introdu!ed

proof of pa#6ent of the real estate taes of the said propert#, as well as a

previous 6ortae of the propert#, petitioner did not show that the disputed

propert# is part of his larer propert#. 1en!e, the appellate !ourt stated that

under su!h !ir!u6stan!es, it !annot rule that petitioner owned the land under

litiation, sin!e petitioner failed to show that it is part of his larer propert#.

The Court of )ppeals did not award a!tual and 6oral da6aes, 3e!ause

respondent failed to prove the a6ount of an# a!tual da6aes sustained, and

the instan!es enu6erated under )rti!le %%(8 of the Civil Code warrantin the

award of 6oral da6aes were not present.

1owever, the Court of )ppeals awarded attorne#Ks fees in the a6ount

of P5&,&&&.&&, !onsiderin that respondent was for!ed to in!ur epenses to

prote!t his riht throuh the a!tion to ?uiet title.

Petitioner filed this petition raisin the followin issues=

I

T1E CORT O< )PPE)2S "ISER):2

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

30/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |30

I

T1E CORT O< )PPE)2S ERRED IN DENIN- PETITIONER;S "OTION

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

31/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |31

inherited fro6 his father in (85%, 3# virtue of open, pu3li! and !ontinuous

possession of the land in the !on!ept of owner 6ain it petitioner;s private

propert#. 1en!e, petitioner pra#s for re!onve#an!e of the said propert#.

)rti!le 4'4 of the Civil Code overns an a!tion for re!onve#an!e, thus=

)rt. 4'4. In an a!tion to re!over, the propert# 6ust 3e identified, and the

plaintiff 6ust rel# on the strenth of his title and not on the weaness of the

defendant;s !lai6.

nder )rti!le 4'4 of the Civil Code, to su!!essfull# 6aintain an a!tion to

re!over the ownership of a real propert#, the person who !lai6s a 3etter riht

to it 6ust prove two *%+ thins= first, the identit# of the land !lai6edB and

se!ond, his title thereto.'5

In reard to the first re?uisite, in an accion reinvindicatoria, the person who

!lai6s that he has a 3etter riht to the propert# 6ust first fi the identit# of

the land he is !lai6in 3# des!ri3in the lo!ation, area and 3oundariesthereof.'/

In this !ase, petitioner !lai6s that the propert# in dispute is part of his larer

propert#. 1owever, petitioner failed to identif# his larer propert# 3# providin

eviden!e of the 6etes and 3ounds thereof, so that the sa6e 6a# 3e

!o6pared with the te!hni!al des!ription !ontained in the title of respondent,

whi!h would have shown whether the disputed propert# reall# for6ed part of

petitioner;s larer propert#. The appellate !ourt !orre!tl# held in its Resolution

dated "a# (', %&&4 that petitioner;s !lai6 is solel# supported 3# testi6onial

eviden!e, whi!h did not !on!lusivel# show the 6etes and 3ounds of

petitioner;s larer propert# in relation to the 6etes and 3ounds of thedisputed propert#B thus, there is no suffi!ient eviden!e on re!ord to support

petitioner;s !lai6 that the disputed propert# is part of his larer propert#.

In reard to the se!ond re?uisite of title to propert#, 3oth petitioner and

respondent separatel# !lai6 that the# are entitled to ownership of the

propert# 3# virtue of open, pu3li!, !ontinuous and e!lusive possession of the

sa6e in the !on!ept of owner. Petitioner !lai6s that he inherited the su3Ge!t

propert# fro6 his father in (85%, while respondent !lai6s that he a!?uired

the propert# fro6 his rand6other Intu6o Pasidan, a portion thereof fro6

his rand6other;s helper Totop "ala!op pursuant to a !ourt de!ision after

litiatin with hi6.'0

Respondent has OCT No. P/5$ to prove his title to the

su3Ge!t propert#, while petitioner 6erel# !lai6s that the propert# is alread#

his private land 3# virtue of his open, pu3li!, !ontinuous possession of the

sa6e in the !on!ept of owner.

The Court holds that petitioner failed to prove the re?uisites of re!onve#an!e

as he failed to prove the identit# of his larer propert# in relation to the

disputed propert#, and his !lai6 of title 3# virtue of open, pu3li! and

!ontinuous possession of the disputed propert# in the !on!ept of owner is

ne3ulous in the liht of a si6ilar !lai6 3# respondent who holds a free patent

title over the su3Ge!t propert#. )s stated in 3a7eJ v. Inter6ediate )ppellate

Court,'$it is relativel# eas# to de!lare and !lai6 that one owns and possesses

pu3li! ari!ultural land, 3ut it is entirel# a different 6atter to affir6ativel#

de!lare and to prove 3efore a !ourt of law that one a!tuall# possessed and

!ultivated the entire area to the e!lusion of other !lai6ants who stand on

e?ual footin under the Pu3li! 2and )!t *Co66onwealth )!t No. (4(, as

a6ended+ as an# other pioneerin !lai6ants.

7/25/2019 LTD JAN 29 2016

32/32

LTD | JAN29 2016 |32

possession of the lot, as well as distinuished a !ollateral atta! under

Se!tion 4$ of PD No. (5%8 fro6 a dire!t atta!, and held that a !ounter!lai6

6a# 3e !onsidered as a !o6plaint or an independent a!tion and !an 3e

!onsidered a dire!t atta! on the title, thus=

The one#ear pres!riptive period, however, does not appl# when the person

seein annul6ent of title or re!onve#an!e is in possession of the lot. This is

3e!ause the a!tion partaes of a suit to ?uiet title whi!h is i6pres!ripti3le.

In David v. Mala#, we held that a person in a!tual possession of a pie!e of

land under !lai6 of ownership 6a# wait until his possession is distur3ed or

his title is atta!ed 3efore tain steps to vindi!ate his riht, and his

undistur3ed possession ives hi6 the !ontinuin riht to see the aid of a

!ourt of e?uit# to as!ertain and deter6ine the nature of the adverse !lai6 of

a third part# and its effe!t on his title.

Se!tion 4$ of P.D. (5%8, the Propert# Reistration De!ree, provides that a!ertifi!ate of title shall not 3e su3Ge!t to !ollateral atta! and !annot 3e

altered, 6odified, or !an!eled e!ept in a dire!t pro!eedin. )n a!tion is an

atta! on a title when the o3Ge!t of the a!tion is to nullif# the title, and thus

!hallene the Gud6ent or pro!eedin pursuant to whi!h the title was

de!reed. The atta! is dire!t when the o3Ge!t of an a!tion is to annul or set

aside su!h Gud6ent, or enGoin its enfor!e6ent. On the other hand, the

atta! is indire!t or !ollateral when, in an a!tion to o3tain a different relief, an

atta! on the Gud6ent or pro!eedin is nevertheless 6ade as an in!ident

thereof.

) !ounter!lai6 !an 3e !onsidered a dire!t atta! on the title.In Develop"ent 'an( of the )hilippines v. Court !ppeals, we ruled on the

validit# of a !ertifi!ate of title despite the fa!t that the nullit# thereof was

raised onl# as a !ounter!lai6. It was held that a !ounter!lai6 is !onsidered a

!o6plaint, onl# this ti6e, it is the oriinal defendant who 3e!o6es the

plaintiff.1avvphi1It stands on the sa6e footin and is to 3e tested 3# the

sa6e rules as if it were an independent a!tion. 4'

The a3ove rulin of the !ourt on the definition of !ollateral atta! under

Se!tion 4$ of P.D. No. (5%8 was reiterated in 2e#son v. :ontu#an, 441eirs of

Enri?ue DiaJ v. irata,45)ranote v. "aluno3,4/and Catores v. )fid!hao.40

:ased on the foreoin, the Court holds that petitioner;s !ounter!lai6 for

!an!ellation of respondent;s title is not a !ollateral atta!, 3ut a dire!t atta!

on the Torrens title of petitioner. 1owever, the !ounter!lai6 seein for the

!an!ellation of title and re!onve#an!e of the su3Ge!t propert# has pres!ri3ed

as petitioner has not proven a!tual possession and ownership of the propert#

due to his failure to prove the identit# of his larer propert# that would show

that the disputed propert# is a part thereof, and his !lai6 of title to the

su3Ge!t propert# 3# virtue of open, pu3li! and !ontinuous possession in the

!on!ept of owner is ne3ulous in the liht of a si6ilar !lai6 3# respondent who

holds a Torrens title to the su3Ge!t propert#.

Respondent;s oriinal !ertifi!ate of title was issued on "a# %%, (8$(, while

the !ounter!lai6 was filed 3# petitioner on O!to3er (5, (8$4, whi!h is !learl#

3e#ond the one#ear pres!riptive period.

In fine, the Court of )ppeals did not err in !onfir6in that respondent is the

owner of the par!el of land !overed 3# OCT No. P/5$.

>1ERE