del prda vs caballero

8/11/2019 del prda vs caballero

1/31

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 148225. March 3, 2010.]

CARMEN DEL PRADO,petitioner, vs. SPOUSESANTONIO L. CABALLERO and LEONARDACABALLERO,respondents.

DECISION

NACHURA,J p:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision1of the Court ofAppeals (CA) dated September 26, 2000 and its resolution denying themotion for reconsideration thereof.

The facts are as follows:

In a judgment rendered on February 1, 1985 in Cadastral Case No. N-6 (LRCRec. No. N-611), Judge Juan Y. Reyes of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ofCebu City, Branch 14, adjudicated in favor of Spouses Antonio L.Caballero and Leonarda B. Caballero several parcels of landsituated in Guba, Cebu City, one of which was Cadastral Lot No.

11909, the subject of this controversy.2On May 21, 1987, AntonioCaballero moved for the issuance of the final decree of registrationfor their lots.3Consequently, on May 25, 1987, the same court,through then Presiding Judge Renato C. Dacudao, ordered theNational Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration to issuethe decree of registration and the corresponding titles of the lots infavor of the Caballeros.4

On June 11, 1990, respondents sold to petitioner, Carmen delPrado, Lot No. 11909 on the basis of the tax declaration coveringthe property. The pertinent portion of the deed of sale reads as follows:

That we, Spouses ANTONIO L. CABALLERO andLEONARDA B. CABALLERO, Filipinos, both of legal ageand residents of Talamban, Cebu City, Philippines, forand in consideration of the sum of FORTY THOUSANDPESOS (P40,000.00), Philippine Currency, paid byCARMEN DEL PRADO, Filipino, of legal age, single and aresident of Sikatuna St., Cebu City, Philippines, thereceipt of which is full is hereby acknowledged, do bythese presents SELL, CEDE, TRANSFER, ASSIGN &CONVEY unto the said CARMEN DEL PRADO, her heirs,assigns and/or successors-in-interest, one (1)unregistered parcel of land, situated at Guba, Cebu City,Philippines, and more particularly described andbounded, as follows: DTIaHE

"A parcel of land known as Cad. Lot No. 11909,bounded as follows:

North : Lot 11903

East : Lot 11908

West : Lot 11910

South : Lot 11858 & 11912

containing an area of 4,000 square meters,

more or less, covered by Tax Dec. No. 00787of the Cebu City Assessor's Office, Cebu City."

of which parcel of land we are the absolute and lawfulowners.

Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1305, covering Lot No.11909, was issued only on November 15, 1990, and entered in the"Registration Book" of the City of Cebu on December 19,1990.5Therein, the technical description of Lot No. 11909 statesthat said lot measures about 14,457 square meters, more or less.6

On March 20, 1991, petitioner filed in the same cadastralproceedings a "Petition for Registration of Document UnderPresidential Decree (P.D.) 1529"7in order that a certificate of titlebe issued in her name, covering the whole Lot No. 11909. In thepetition, petitioner alleged that the tenor of the instrument of sale indicated
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnotes


2/31

that the sale was for a lump sum or cuerpo cierto,in which case, the vendorwas bound to deliver all that was included within said boundaries even whenit exceeded the area specified in the contract. Respondents opposed, onthe main ground that only 4,000 sq m of Lot No. 11909 was sold topetitioner. They claimed that the sale was not for a cuerpo cierto.Theymoved for the outright dismissal of the petition on grounds of prescriptionand lack of jurisdiction.

After trial on the merits, the court found that petitioner hadestablished a clear and positive right to Lot No. 11909. Theintended sale between the parties was for a lump sum, since therewas no evidence presented that the property was sold for a priceper unit. It was apparent that the subject matter of the sale was the parcelof land, known as Cadastral Lot No. 11909, and not only a portion thereof.8

Thus, on August 2, 1993, the court a quo rendered its decision with thefollowing dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition ishereby granted and judgment is hereby rendered infavor of herein petitioner. The Register of Deeds of theCity of Cebu is hereby ordered and directed to effect theregistration in his office of the Deed of Absolute Salebetween Spouses Antonio Caballero and LeonardaCaballero and Petitioner, Carmen del Prado dated June11, 1990 covering Lot No. 11909 after payment of allfees prescribed by law. Additionally, the Register ofDeeds of the City of Cebu is hereby ordered to cancelOriginal Certificate No. 1305 in the name of AntonioCaballero and Leonarda Caballero and the Transfer

Certificate of Title be issued in the name of PetitionerCarmen del Prado covering the entire parcel of landknown as Cadastral Lot No. 11909.9

An appeal was duly filed. On September 26, 2000, the CApromulgated the assailed decision, reversing and setting aside thedecision of the RTC. EcDSHT

The CA no longer touched on the character of the sale, because it foundthat petitioner availed herself of an improper remedy. The "petition forregistration of document" is not one of the remedies provided under P.D.

No. 1529, after the original registration has been effected. Thus, the CAruled that the lower court committed an error when it assumed jurisdictionover the petition, which prayed for a remedy not sanctioned undertheProperty Registration Decree.Accordingly, the CA disposed, as follows:

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appealeddecision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new oneentered dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction.No pronouncement as to costs.10

Aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant petition, raising the following issues:

I.WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALSCOMMITTED GRAVE ERROR INMAKING FINDINGS OF FACTCONTRARY TO THAT OF THE TRIALCOURT[;]

II.WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALSCOMMITTED GRAVE ERROR INFAILING TO RULE THAT THE SALE OFTHE LOT IS FOR A LUMP SUMOR CUERPO CIERTO[;]

III.WHETHER OR NOT THE COURTA QUO HASJURISDICTION OVER THE PETITIONFOR REGISTRATION OF THE DEEDOF ABSOLUTE SALE DATED 11 JUNE1990 EXECUTED BETWEEN HEREINPETITIONER AND

RESPONDENTS[.]11

The core issue in this case is whether or not the sale of the landwas for a lump sum or not.

Petitioner asserts that the plain language of the Deed of Sale shows that it isa sale of a real estate for a lump sum, governed under Article 1542 of theCivil Code.12In the contract, it was stated that the land contains an area of4,000 sq m more or less,bounded on the North by Lot No. 11903, on theEast by Lot No. 11908, on the South by Lot Nos. 11858 & 11912, and on theWest by Lot No. 11910. When the OCT was issued, the area of Lot No.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnotes


3/31

11909 was declared to be 14,475 sq m, with an excess of 10,475 sqm. In accordance with Article 1542, respondents are, therefore,duty-bound to deliver the whole area within the boundaries stated,without any corresponding increase in the price. Thus, petitionerconcludes that she is entitled to have the certificate of title,covering the whole Lot No. 11909, which was originally issued inthe names of respondents, transferred to her name.

We do not agree. ETHIDa

InEsguerra v. Trinidad,13the Court had occasion to discuss the matter ofsales involving real estates. The Court's pronouncement is quite instructive:

In sales involving real estate, the parties may choosebetween two types of pricing agreement: a unit pricecontractwherein the purchase price is determined byway of reference to a stated rate per unit area(e.g.,P1,000 per square meter), or a lump sumcontractwhich states a full purchase price for animmovable the area of which may be declared based onthe estimate or where both the area and boundaries arestated (e.g.,P1 million for 1,000 square meters,etc.).In Rudolf Lietz, Inc. v. Court of Appeals(478 SCRA451), the Court discussed the distinction:

". . . In a unit price contract, the statement ofarea of immovable is not conclusive and theprice may be reduced or increased dependingon the area actually delivered. If the vendordelivers less than the area agreed upon, the

vendee may oblige the vendor to deliver allthat may be stated in the contract or demandfor the proportionate reduction of the purchaseprice if delivery is not possible. If the vendordelivers more than the area stated in thecontract, the vendee has the option to acceptonly the amount agreed upon or to accept thewhole area, provided he pays for the additionalarea at the contract rate.

xxx xxx xxx

In the case where the area of an immovable isstated in the contract based on an estimate,the actual area delivered may not measure upexactly with the area stated in the contract.According to Article 1542 of the Civil Code, inthe sale of real estate, made for a lump sumand not at the rate of a certain sum for a unitof measure or number, there shall be noincrease or decrease of the price, althoughthere be a greater or less areas or numberthan that stated in the contract. . . .

xxx xxx xxx

Where both the area and the boundaries of theimmovable are declared,the area covered

within the boundaries of the immovableprevailsover the stated area.In cases of

conflict between areas and boundaries, it is thelatter which should prevail. What reallydefines a piece of groundis not the area,calculated with more or less certainty,

mentioned in its description, but theboundaries therein laid down, as enclosing theland and indicating its limits.In a contract ofsale of land in a mass, it is well establishedthat the specific boundaries stated in thecontract must control over any statement withrespect to the area contained within itsboundaries. It is not of vital consequence thata deed or contract of sale of land shoulddisclose the area with mathematical accuracy.It is sufficient if its extent is objectivelyindicated with sufficient precision to enableone to identify it. An error as to the superficialarea is immaterial. Thus, the obligation of thevendor is to deliver everything within theboundaries, inasmuch as it is the entiretythereof that distinguishes the determinateobject.14
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52950?search=gr%3A+%28148225%2A%29#footnotes


4/31

The Court, however, clarified that the rule laid down in Article 1542 is nothard and fast and admits of an exception. It held:

A caveat is in order, however. The use of "more or less"or similar words in designating quantity covers only

a reasonable excess or deficiency. A vendee of landsold in gross or with the description "more or less" withreference to its area does not thereby ipso facto take allrisk of quantity in the land. HaIATC

Numerical data are not of course the sole gauge ofunreasonableness of the excess or deficiency in area.Courts must consider a host of other factors. In onecase (see Roble v. Arbasa, 414 Phil. 343 [2001]), theCourt found substantial discrepancy in area due tocontemporaneous circumstances. Citing change in thephysical nature of the property, it was thereinestablished that the excess area at the southern portion

was a product of reclamation, which explained why theland's technical description in the deed of sale indicatedthe seashore as its southern boundary, hence, theinclusion of the reclaimed area was declaredunreasonable.15

In the instant case, the deed of sale is not one of a unit pricecontract. The parties agreed on the purchase price of P40,000.00for a predetermined area of 4,000 sq m, more or less,bounded onthe North by Lot No. 11903, on the East by Lot No. 11908, on theSouth by Lot Nos. 11858 & 11912, and on the West by Lot No.11910. In a contract of sale of land in a mass, the specific boundaries

stated in the contract must control over any other statement, with respect tothe area contained within its boundaries.16

Black's Law Dictionary17defines the phrase "more or less" to mean:

About; substantially; or approximately; implying thatboth parties assume the risk of any ordinarydiscrepancy. The words are intended to cover slightor unimportant inaccuracies in quantity, Carter v.Finch,186 Ark. 954, 57 S.W.2d 408; and are ordinarilyto be interpreted as taking care of unsubstantial

differences or differences of small importance comparedto the whole number of items transferred.

Clearly, the discrepancy of 10,475 sq m cannot be considered aslight difference in quantity. The difference in the area is obviously

sizeable and too substantial to be overlooked. It is not a reasonable excessor deficiency that should be deemed included in the deed of sale.

We take exception to the avowed rule that this Court is not a trier of facts.After an assiduous scrutiny of the records, we lend credence to respondents'claim that they intended to sell only 4,000 sq m of the whole Lot No. 11909,contrary to the findings of the lower court. The records reveal that when theparties made an ocular inspection, petitioner specifically pointed to thatportion of the lot, which she preferred to purchase, since there were mangotrees planted and a deep well thereon. After the sale, respondents deliveredand segregated the area of 4,000 sq m in favor of petitioner by fencing offthe area of 10,475 sq m belonging to them.18

Contracts are the law between the contracting parties. Sale, by its verynature, is a consensual contract, because it is perfected by mere consent.The essential elements of a contract of sale are the following: (a) consent ormeeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in exchange forthe price; (b) determinate subject matter; and (c) price certain in money orits equivalent. All these elements are present in the instant case.19

More importantly, we find no reversible error in the decision of theCA. Petitioner's recourse, by filing the petition for registration inthe same cadastral case, was improper. It is a fundamental principle inland registration that a certificate of title serves as evidence of anindefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person

whose name appears therein. Such indefeasibility commences after one yearfrom the date of entry of the decree of registration.20Inasmuch as thepetition for registration of document did not interrupt the running of theperiod to file the appropriate petition for review and considering that theprescribed one-year period had long since expired, the decree ofregistration, as well as the certificate of title issued in favor of respondents,had become incontrovertible.21cHDaEI

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.


5/31

ECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 171531. January 30, 2009.]

GUARANTEED HOMES, INC.,petitioner, vs. HEIRSOF MARIA P. VALDEZ, (EMILIA V. YUMUL andVICTORIA V. MOLINO), HEIRS OF SEVERINA P.TUGADE (ILUMINADA and LEONORA P. TUGADE,HEIRS OF ETANG P. GATMIN (LUDIVINA G. DELACRUZ (by and through ALFONSO G. DELA CRUZ),HILARIA G. COBERO and ALFREDO G. COBERO)and SIONY G. TEPOL (by and through ELENA T.RIVAS and ELESIO TEPOL, JR.), AS HEIRS OFDECEDENT PABLO PASCUA,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA,J p:

This is a petition for review1under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of theCourt of Appeals' Decision dated 22 March 20052and Resolution dated 9February 20063in CA-G.R. CV No. 67462. The Court of Appealsreversed the 12 November 1999 Order of the Regional Trial Court(RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 734which granted the motion todismiss filed by Guaranteed Homes, Inc . (petitioner). The appellatecourt denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The factual antecedents are as follows:

Respondents, who are the descendants of Pablo Pascua (Pablo),filed a complaint seeking reconveyance of a parcel of landwith anarea of 23.7229 hectares situated in Cabitaugan, Subic, Zambales andcovered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 404 in the name ofPablo.5In the alternative, the respondents prayed that damages beawarded in their favor.6

OCT No. 4047was attached as one of the annexes of respondents'complaint. It contained several annotations in the memorandum ofencumbrances which showed that the property had already beensold by Pablo during his lifetime to Alejandria Marquinez andRestituto Morales.Respondents also attached copies of the followingdocuments as integral parts of their complaint: Transfer Certificate of Title(TCT) No. T-8241,8TCT No. T-8242,9TCT No. T-10863,10theExtrajudicial Settlement of a Sole Heir and Confirmation ofSales11executed by Cipriano Pascua, Sr. (Cipriano), and the Deed of Salewith Mortgage12between spouses Albino Rodolfo and Fabia Rodolfo(spouses Rodolfo) and petitioner. HICSaD

In their complaint,13respondents alleged that Pablo died intestatesometime in June 1945 and was survived by his four children, oneof whom was the deceased Cipriano.14On 13 February 1967,Cipriano executed a document denominated as "ExtrajudicialSettlement of a Sole Heir and Confirmation of Sales",15whereinhe declared himself as the only heir of Pablo and confirmed the

sales made by the decedent during his lifetime, including thealleged sale of the disputed property to spouses Rodolfo .

Respondents likewise averred that on the following day 14February 1967, TCT No. T-824116was issued in the name ofCipriano "without OCT No. 404 having beencancelled."17However, TCT No. T-8241 was not signed by theRegister of Deeds. On the same day, TCT No. T-8242 was issued inthe name of the spouses Rodolfo and TCT No. T-8241 was therebycancelled.18Subsequently, on 31 October 1969, the spousesRodolfo sold the disputed property to petitioner by virtue of a Deedof Sale with Mortgage. Consequently, on 5 November 1969, TCTNo. T-8242 was cancelled and TCT No. T-1086319was issued inthe name of petitioner.20

It was further averred in the complaint that Jorge Pascua, Sr., son ofCipriano, filed on 24 January 1997 a petition before the RTC of OlongapoCity, Branch 75, for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate of OCT No. 404,docketed as Other Case No. 04-0-97.21The RTC denied thepetition.22The trial court held that petitioner was already the owner of theland, noting that the failure to annotate the subsequent transfer of theproperty to it at the back of OCT No. 404 did not affect its title to theproperty.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnotes


6/31

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss23the complaint on thegrounds that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations,more than 28 years having elapsed from the issuance of TCT No. T-10863 up to the filing of the complaint, and that the complaintstates no cause of action as it is an innocent purchaser for value, ithaving relied on the clean title of the spouses Rodolfo.

Impleaded as defendants, the heirs of Cipriano filed an answer to thecomplaint in which they denied knowledge of the existence of theextrajudicial settlement allegedly executed by Cipriano and averred that thelatter, during his lifetime, did not execute any document transferringownership of the property.24TcCEDS

The Register of Deeds and the National Treasurer filed, through theOffice of the Solicitor General, an answer averring that the six (6)-year period fixed in Section 102 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.1529 for the filing of an action against the Assurance Fund hadlong prescribed since the transfer of ownership over the property

was registered through the issuance of TCT No. T-10863 in favor ofpetitioner as early as 1969. They also claimed that respondents have nocause of action against the Assurance Fund since they were not actuallydeprived of ownership over the property, as they could have recovered theproperty had it not been for their inaction for over 28 years.25

The RTC granted petitioner's motion to dismiss.26Noting thatrespondents had never claimed nor established that they have been inpossession of the property and that they did not present any evidence toshow that petitioner has not been in possession of the property either, theRTC applied the doctrine that an action to quiet title prescribes where theplaintiff is not in possession of the property.

The trial court found that the complaint per its allegations presented a caseof implied or constructive trust on the part of Cipriano who had inaccuratelyclaimed to be the sole heir of Pablo in the deed of extrajudicial settlement ofestate which led to the issuance of TCT No. T-8241 in his favor. As theprescriptive period for reconveyance of a fraudulently registered realproperty is ten (10) years reckoned from the date of the issuance of thetitle, the trial court held that the action for reconveyance had alreadyprescribed with the lapse of more than 28 years from the issuance of TCTNo. T-10863 on 5 November 1969 as of the filing of the complaint on 21November 1997.

The RTC added that it is an enshrined rule that even a registeredowner of property may be barred from recovering possession ofproperty by virtue of laches.

The RTC further held that petitioner had the right to rely on TCT No. T-8242

in the name of spouses Rodolfo. Petitioner is not obliged to go beyond thetitle considering that there were no circumstances surrounding the salesufficient to put it into inquiry. IcESaA

Concerning the Assurance Fund, the RTC held that the claim against it hadlong prescribed since Section 102 of P.D. No. 1529 provides for a six-yearperiod within which a plaintiff may file an action against the fund and in thiscase the period should be counted from the time of the issuance of thechallenged TCT No. T-10863 on 5 November 1969 and thus expired in 1975.

Undaunted, respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals.27

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's order.28In ordering thereinstatement of the complaint, the appellate court ruled that the avermentsin respondents' complaint before the RTC make out a case for quieting oftitle which has not prescribed. Respondents did not have to provepossession over the property since petitioner as the movant in a motion todismiss hypothetically admitted the truth of the allegations in the complaint.The appellate court found that possession over the property was sufficientlyalleged in the complaint which stated that "neither petitioner nor the Rodolfospouses ever had possession of the disputed property" as "a number of thePascua heirs either had been (still are) in actual, continuous and adversepossession thereof or had been enjoying (still are enjoying) the usethereof."29By the same token, laches had not set in, the Court of Appealsadded.

The appellate court further held that the ruling of the RTC that petitioner isan innocent purchaser for value is contrary to the allegations in respondents'complaint.

Hence, the present petition for review.

The sole issue before this Court revolves around the propriety of the RTC'sgranting of the motion to dismiss and conversely the tenability of the Courtof Appeals' reversal of the RTC's ruling.


7/31

The petition is meritorious.

It is well-settled that to sustain a dismissal on the ground that the complaintstates no cause of action, the insufficiency of the cause of action mustappear on the face of the complaint, and the test of the sufficiency of the

facts alleged in the complaint to constitute a cause of action is whether ornot, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgmentupon the same in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. For thepurpose, the motion to dismiss must hypothetically admit the truth of thefacts alleged in the complaint.30The admission, however, is limited only toall material and relevant facts which are well pleaded in the complaint.31

The factual allegations in respondents' complaint should be considered intandem with the statements and inscriptions on the documents attached toit as annexes or integral parts. In a number of cases, the Court held that inaddition to the complaint, other pleadings submitted by the parties shouldbe considered in deciding whether or not the complaint should be dismissedfor lack of cause of action.32Likewise, other facts not alleged in the

complaint may be considered where the motion to dismiss was heard withthe submission of evidence, or if documentary evidence admitted bystipulation discloses facts sufficient to defeat the claim.33For while thecourt must accept as true all well pleaded facts in the complaint, the motiondoes not admit allegations of which the court will take judicial notice are nottrue, nor does the rule apply to legally impossible facts, nor to factsinadmissible in evidence, nor to facts which appear by record or documentincluded in the pleadings to be unfounded.34

In the case at bar, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to

dismiss. At the hearing, the parties presented documentary evidence.Among the documents marked and offered in evidence are the annexes ofthe complaint.35HCITcA

Based on the standards set by this Court in relation to the factual allegationsand documentary annexes of the complaint as well as the exhibits offered atthe hearing of the motion to dismiss, the inescapable conclusion is thatrespondents' complaint does not state a cause of action against petitioner.

Firstly, the complaint does not allege any defect with TCT No. T-8242 in thename of the spouses Rodolfo, who were petitioner's predecessors-in-

interest, or any circumstance from which it could reasonably be inferred thatpetitioner had any actual knowledge of facts that would impel it to makefurther inquiry into the title of the spouses Rodolfo.36It is basic that aperson dealing with registered property need not go beyond, butonly has to rely on, the title of his predecessor-in-interest. Since"the act of registration is the operative act to convey or affect theland insofar as third persons are concerned", it follows that wherethere is nothing in the certificate of title to indicate any cloud orvice in the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon,the purchaser is not required to explore farther than what theTorrens title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defector inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto. Ifthe rule were otherwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of thecertificate of title which the Torrens system seeks to insure wouldentirely be futile and nugatory. The public shall then be denied ofits foremost motivation for respecting and observing the Torrenssystem of registration. In the end, the business community standsto be inconvenienced and prejudiced immeasurably.37

Contrary to the assertion of respondents, OCT No. 404 wasexpressly cancelled by TCT No. T-8241. The alleged non-signatureby the Register of Deeds Soliman Achacoso, does not affect thevalidity of TCT No. T-8241 since he signed TCT No. T-8242 andissued both titles on the same day. There is a presumption ofregularity in the performance of official duty. The presumption isfurther bolstered by the fact that TCT No. T-8241 was certified tobe on file with the Registry of Deeds and registered in the name ofCipriano. It is enough that petitioner had examined the latestcertificate of title which in this case was issued in the name of theimmediate transferor, the spouses Rodolfo. The purchaser is notbound by the original certificate but only by the certificate of title

of the person from whom he had purchased the property.38

Secondly, while the Extrajudicial Settlement of a Sole Heir and Confirmationof Sales executed by Cipriano alone despite the existence of the other heirsof Pablo, is not binding on such other heirs, nevertheless, it has operativeeffect under Section 44 of the Property Registration Decree, which providesthat: ESaITA

SEC. 44.Statutory Liens Affecting Title.Everyregistered owner receiving a certificate of title inpursuance of a decree of registration, and every
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnotes


8/31

subsequent purchaser of registered land taking acertificate of title for value and in good faith, shall holdthe same free from all encumbrances except thosenoted on said certificate and any of the followingencumbrances which may be subsisting, namely:

xxx xxx xxx

Even assumingarguendo that the extrajudicial settlement was a forgery, theCourt still has to uphold the tit le of petitioner. The case law is that althoughgenerally a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no title, thereare instances when such a fraudulent document may become the root of avalid title.39And one such instance is where the certificate of titlewas already transferred from the name of the true owner to theforger, and while it remained that way, the land was subsequentlysold to an innocent purchaser. For then, the vendee had the rightto rely upon what appeared in the certificate.40

The Court cannot give credence to respondents' claims that theExtrajudicial Settlement of a Sole Heir and Confirmation of Saleswas not registered and that OCT No. 404 was not cancelled by theRegister of Deeds. The Register of Deeds of Zambales certified thatthe extrajudicial settlement was recorded on 14 February 1967, perEntry No. 18590. This is in compliance with Section 56 of Act No.496,41the applicable law at the time of registration, which providesthat: EHIcaT

Sec. 56.Each register of deeds shall keep an entry bookin which he shall enter in the order of their reception alldeeds and other voluntary instruments, and all copies of

writs and other process filed with him relating toregistered land. He shall note in such book the year,month, day, hour, and minute of reception of allinstruments, in the order in which they arereceived. They shall be regarded as registeredfrom the time so noted,and the memorandum ofeach instrument when made on the certificate of title towhich it refers shall bear the same date. [Emphasissupplied]

Registration in the public registry is notice to the whole world. Everyconveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrumentor entry affecting registered land shall be, if registered, filed or entered inthe Office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land towhich it relates lies, constructive notice to all persons from the time of suchregistering, filing or entering.42

Thirdly, respondents cannot make out a case for quieting of titlesince OCT No. 404 had already been cancelled. Respondents haveno title to anchor their complaint on.43Title to real property refersto that upon which ownership is based. It is the evidence of theright of the owner or the extent of his interest, by which means hecan maintain control and, as a rule, assert right to exclusivepossession and enjoyment of the property.44cIHSTC

Moreover, there is nothing in the complaint which specified that therespondents were in possession of the property. They merely alleged thatthe occupants or possessors are "others not defendant Spouses

Rodolfo"45who could be anybody, and that the property is in actualpossession of "a number of the Pascua heirs"46who could either be therespondents or the heirs of Cipriano. The admission of the truth of materialand relevant facts well pleaded does not extend to render a demurrer anadmission of inferences or conclusions drawn therefrom, even if alleged inthe pleading; nor mere inferences or conclusions from facts not stated; norconclusions of law; nor matters of evidence; nor surplusage and irrelevantmatters.47

The other heirs of Pablo should have filed an action forreconveyance based on implied or constructive trust within ten(10) years from the date of registration of the deed or the date of

the issuance of the certificate of title over the property.48

Thelegal relationship between Cipriano and the other heirs of Pablo is

governed by Article 1456 of the Civil Code which provides that if aproperty is acquired through mistake or fraud, the personobtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an impliedtrust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.

From the above discussion, there is no question that petitioner isan innocent purchaser for value; hence, no cause of action forcancellation of title will lie against it.49The RTC was correct ingranting petitioner's motion to dismiss. IcADSE
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/51384?search=gr%3A+%28171531%2A%29#footnotes


9/31

Lastly, respondents' claim against the Assurance Fund also cannot prosper.Section 101 of P.D. No. 1529 clearly provides that the Assurance Fund shallnot be liable for any loss, damage or deprivation of any right or interest inland which may have been caused by a breach of trust, whether express,implied or constructive. Even assuming arguendo that they are entitled toclaim against the Assurance Fund, the respondents' claim has already

prescribed since any action for compensation against the Assurance Fundmust be brought within a period of six (6) years from the time the right tobring such action first occurred, which in this case was in 1967.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appealsin CA-G.R. CV No. 67462 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The 12 November1999 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 73 in CivilCase No. 432-097 is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.


10/31

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 154270. March 9, 2010.]

TEOFISTO OO, PRECY O. NAMBATAC, VICTORIAO. MANUGAS and POLOR O.CONSOLACION,petitioners, vs. VICENTE N.LIM,respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN,J p:

The subject of controversy is Lot No. 943 of the Balamban Cadastre in CebuCity, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-9969-(O-20449),over which the contending parties in this action for quieting of title,initiated by respondent Vicente N. Lim (Lim) in the Regional TrialCourt(RTC) in Cebu City, assert exclusive ownership, to the exclusion ofthe other. In its decision dated July 30, 1996,1the RTC favored Lim, andordered the cancellation of OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449) and the issuance ofa new certificate of title in the name of Luisa Narvios-Lim (Luisa), Lim'sdeceased mother and predecessor-in-interest.

On appeal (CA-GR CV No. 57823), the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed theRTC on January 28, 2002.2It later denied the petitioners' motion forreconsiderationthrough the resolution dated June 17, 2002.3

Hence, this appeal viapetition for review on certiorari.

Antecedents

On October 23, 1992, Lim filed in the RTC in Cebu City a petition forthe reconstitution of the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449), alleging that said OCT had been lost during WorldWar II by his mother, Luisa;4that Lot No. 943 of the BalambanCadastre in Cebu City covered by said OCT had been sold in 1937 to

Luisa by Spouses Diego Oo and Estefania Apas (Spouses Oo), thelot's registered owners; and that although the deed evidencing thesale had been lost without being registered, Antonio Oo(Antonio), the only legitimate heir of Spouses Oo, had executedon April 23, 1961 in favor of Luisa a notarized documentdenominated as confirmation of sale,5which was duly filed in the

Provincial Assessor's Office of Cebu.

Zosimo Oo and petitioner Teofisto Oo (Oos) opposed Lim'spetition, contending that they had the certificate of title in theirpossession as the successors-in-interest of Spouses Oo.

On account of the Oos' opposition, and upon order of the RTC, Limconverted the petition for reconstitution into a complaint forquieting of title,6averring additionally that he and hispredecessor-in-interest had been in actual possession of theproperty since 1937, cultivating and developing it, enjoying itsfruits, and paying the taxes corresponding to it. He prayed, inter

alia, that the Oos be ordered to surrender the reconstituted owner'sduplicate copy of OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449), and that said OCT becancelled and a new certificate of title be issued in the name of Luisa in lieuof said OCT.

In their answer,7the Oos claimed that their predecessors-in-interest, Spouses Oo, never sold Lot No. 943 to Luisa; and thatthe confirmation of salepurportedly executed by Antonio wasfabricated, his signature thereon not being authentic.

RTC Ruling

On July 30, 1996, after trial, the RTC rendered its decision,8viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is herebyrendered quieting plaintiff's title to Lot No. 943 of theBalamban (Cebu) Cadastre, and directing the Registerof Deeds of Cebu

(1)To register the aforestated April 23, 1961Confirmation of Sale of Lot No. 943 of the Balamban,Cebu Cadastre by Antonio Oo in favor of Luisa Narvios-Lim;
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnotes


11/31

(2)To cancel the original certificate of title covering thesaid Lot No. 943 of the Balamban, Cebu Cadastre; and,

(3)To issue in the name of Luisa Narvios-Lim, a newduplicate certificate of title No. RO-9969 (O-20449) ofthe Register of Deeds of Cebu, which shall contain amemorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of thelost duplicate certificate of title, and shall in all respectsbe entitled to like faith and credit as the originalcertificate, and shall be regarded as such for allpurposes of this decree, pursuant to the last paragraphof Section 109, Presidential Decree No. 1529.AcSIDE

Without special pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.9

The RTC found that the Lims had been in peaceful possession of theland since 1937; that their possession had never been disturbed bythe Oos, except on two occasions in 1993 when the Oos seizedthe harvested copra from the Lims' caretaker; that the Lims hadsince declared the lot in their name for taxation purposes, and hadpaid the taxes corresponding to the lot; that the signature ofAntonio on the confirmation of salewas genuine, thereby giving moreweight to the testimony of the notary public who had notarized thedocument and affirmatively testified that Antonio and Luisa had bothappeared before him to acknowledge the instrument as true than to thetestimony of the expert witness who attested that Antonio's signature was aforgery.

CA Ruling

On appeal, the Oos maintained that the confirmation of sale was spurious;that the property, being a titled one, could not be acquired by the Limsthrough prescription; that their (the Oos) action to claim the property couldnot be barred by laches; and that the action instituted by the Limsconstituted a collateral attack against their registered title.

The CA affirmed the RTC, however, and found that Spouses Oohad sold Lot No. 943 to Luisa; and that such sale had beenconfirmed by their son Antonio. The CA ruled that the action for

quieting of title was not a collateral, but a direct attack on the title; and thatthe Lims' undisturbed possession had given them a continuing right to seekthe aid of the courts to determine the nature of the adverse claim of a thirdparty and its effect on their own title.

Nonetheless, the CA corrected the RTC, by ordering that the Office of theRegister of Deeds of Cebu City issue a new duplicate certificate of title in thename of Luisa, considering that the owner's duplicate was still intact in thepossession of the Oos.

The decree of the CA decision was as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack ofmerit. However, the dispositive portion of the decisionappealed from is CORRECTED as follows:

(1)Within five (5) days from finality of the

decision, defendants-appellants aredirected to present the owner'sduplicate copy of OCT No. RO-9969(O-20449) to the Register of Deedswho shall thereupon register the"Confirmation of Sale" of Lot No. 943,Balamban Cadastre, Cebu, executedon April 23, 1961 by Antonio Oo infavor of Luisa Narvios-Lim, and issuea new transfer certificate of title toand in the name of the latter uponcancellation of the outstandingoriginal and owner's duplicate

certificate of title.

(2)In the event defendants-appellants neglector refuse to present the owner's copyof the title to the Register of Deeds asherein directed, the said title, by forceof this decision, shall be deemedannulled, and the Register of Deedsshall make a memorandum of suchfact in the record and in the new
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnotes


12/31

transfer certificate of title to be issuedto Luisa Narvios-Lim.

(3)Defendants-appellants shall pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.10

The CA denied the Oos' motion for reconsideration11on June 17,2002.12

Hence, this appeal. IDCHTE

Issues

The petitioners raise the following issues:

1.Whether or not the validity of the OCT could becollaterally attacked through an ordinary civilaction to quiet title;

2.Whether or not the ownership over registered landcould be lost by prescription, laches, oradverse possession;

3.Whether or not there was a deed of sale executed bySpouses Oo in favor of Luisa and whether ornot said deed was lost during World War II;

4.Whether or not the confirmation of sale executed byAntonio in favor of Luisa existed; and

5.Whether or not the signature purportedly of Antonioin that confirmation of salewas genuine.

Ruling of the Court

The petition has no merit.

A.

Action for cancellation of titleis not an attack on the title

The petitioners contend that this action for quieting of title should bedisallowed because it constituted a collateral attack on OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449), citing Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, viz.:

Section 48.Certificate not subject to collateral attack.A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateralattack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelledexcept in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

The petitioners' contention is not well taken.

An action or proceeding is deemed an attack on a title when its objective isto nullify the title, thereby challenging the judgment pursuant to which thetitle was decreed.13The attack is direct when the objective is to annul or

set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, theattack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief,an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.14

Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of anycloud, doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to realproperty.15Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or anyinterest in real property by reason of any instrument, record, claim,encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently valid or effective, but is, intruth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may beprejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or toquiet the title.16In such action, the competent court is tasked todetermine the respective rights of the complainant and the other claimants,

not only to place things in their proper places, and to make the claimant,who has no rights to said immovable, respect and not disturb the one soentitled, but also for the benefit of both, so that whoever has the right willsee every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he can thereafterfearlessly introduce the improvements he may desire, as well as use, andeven abuse the property as he deems fit.17

Lim's complaint pertinently alleged:

18.If indeed, the genuine original of the Owner'sDuplicate of the Reconstituted Original Certificate of
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnotes


13/31

Title No. RO-9699 (O-20449) for Lot 943, BalambanCadastre . . . is in Defendant's (Oo's) possession, thenVNL submits the following PROPOSITIONS:

xxx xxx xxx

18.2.Therefore, the Original of Owner's DuplicateCertificate (which Respondents [Defendants Oos] claimin their Opposition is in their possession) must besurrendered to VNL upon order of this Court, after theCourt shall have determined VNL's mother's acquisitionof the attributes of ownership over said Lot 943, in thisaction, in accordance with Section 107, P.D. 1529,Property Registration Decree . . .

xxx xxx xxx

[t]hat OCT 20449 be cancelled and new title for Lot 943be issued directly in favor of LUISA NARVIOS, tocomplete her title to said Lot;18

The averments readily show that the action was neither a direct nor acollateral attack on OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449), for Lim was asserting onlythat the existing title registered in the name of the petitioners' predecessorshad become inoperative due to the conveyance in favor of Lim's mother,and resultantly should be cancelled. Lim did not thereby assail the validity ofOCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449), or challenge the judgment by which the titleof the lot involved had been decreed. In other words, the action soughtthe removal of a cloud from Lim's title, and the confirmation ofLim's ownership over the disputed property as the successor-in-

interest of Luisa.

B.

Prescription was not relevant

The petitioners assert that the lot, being titled in the name of theirpredecessors-in-interest, could not be acquired by prescription or adversepossession.

The assertion is unwarranted.

Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring or losing ownershipand other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner andunder the conditions laid down by law.19However, prescription wasnot relevant to the determination of the dispute herein, considering that Limdid not base his right of ownership on an adverse possession over a certainperiod. He insisted herein, instead, that title to the land had been

voluntarily transferred by the registered owners themselves toLuisa, his predecessor-in-interest.

Lim showed that his mother had derived a just title to the property by virtueof sale; that from the time Luisa had acquired the property in 1937, she hadtaken over its possession in the concept of an owner, and had performedher obligation by paying real property taxes on the property, as evidencedby tax declarations issued in her name;20and that in view of the deliveryof the property, coupled with Luisa's actual occupation of it, all thatremained to be done was the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title inher name. cdrep

C.Forgery, being a question of fact,

could not be dealt with now

The petitioners submit that Lim's evidence did not preponderantly show thatthe ownership of the lot had been transferred to Luisa; and that both thetrial and the appellate courts disregarded their showing that Antonio'ssignature on the confirmation of sale was a forgery.

Clearly, the petitioners hereby seek a review of the evaluation andappreciation of the evidence presented by the parties.

The Court cannot anymore review the evaluation and appreciation of theevidence, because the Court is not a trier of facts.21Although this ruleadmits of certain exceptions, viz.: (1) when the conclusion is a findinggrounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjecture; (2) when theinference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) where there is a graveabuse of discretion; (4) when thejudgment is based on amisapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact areconflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, wentbeyond the issues of the case , and the findings are contrary to theadmissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of theCourt of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnotes


14/31

findings of fact are conclusions without specific evidenceon which theyare based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well in thepetitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and,(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on thesupposed absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence onrecord,22it does not appear now that any of the exceptions is presentherein. We thus apply the rule without hesitation, and reject the appeal forthat reason.

It is emphasized, too, that the CA upheld the conclusion arrived at by theRTC that the signature of Antonio had not been simulated or forged. The CAruled that the testimony of the notary public who had notarizedthe confirmation of saleto the effect that Antonio and Luisa had appearedbefore him prevailed over that of the petitioners' expert witness. Theconcurrence of their conclusion on the genuineness of Antonio's signaturenow binds the Court.23

In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case

by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidenceis the weight,credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side, and is usuallyconsidered to be synonymous with the term greater weight of theevidence orgreater weight of the credible evidence. Preponderance ofevidenceis a phrase that means, in the last analysis, probability of thetruth.24It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as worthy ofbelief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.

Lim successfully discharged his burden of proof as the plaintiff. Heestablished by preponderant evidence that he had a superior right and titleto the property. In contrast, the petitioners did not present any proof oftheir better title other than their copy of the reconstituted certificate of title.Such proof was not enough, because the registration of a piece of landunder the Torrens system did not create or vest title, suchregistration not being a mode of acquiring ownership. Thepetitioners need to be reminded that a certificate of title is merelyan evidence of ownership or title over the particular propertydescribed therein. Its issuance in favor of a particular person doesnot foreclose the possibility that the real property may be co-owned with persons not named in the certificate, or that it may beheld in trust for another person by the registered owner.25

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is denied, and thedecision dated January 28, 2002 is affirmed.

The petitioners are ordered to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED. cCaEDA
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/52970?search=gr%3A+%28154270%2A%29#footnotes


15/31

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. L-21703-04. August 31, 1966.]

MATEO H. REYES and JUAN H. REYES,petitioners-appellants, vs.MATEO RAVAL REYES, respondent-appellee.

Harold M. Hernando for petitioners-appellants.

Rafael Ruiz for respondent-appellee.

D E C I S I O N

REYES, J.B.L., J p:

Direct appeal on pure question of law from an order of the Court of FirstInstance of Ilocos Norte, in its Cadastral Cases Nos. 31, L.R.C. Rec. No.1188, and 42 L. R. C. Rec. No. 1194, denying petitioners' motion tocompel respondent to surrender their owners' duplicates ofOriginal Certificates of Title Nos. 22161 and 8066, as well as from asubsequent order of the same court, refusing, upon petitioners'motion, to reconsider the first order of denial.

The undisputed facts are: three brothers, Mateo H., Juan H., andFrancisco H., all surnamed Reyes, are the registered owners ofseveral parcels of land, to wit: Lots Nos. 15891, 15896, 15902 and15912, of the Laoag (Ilocos Norte) Cadastre, embraced in andcovered by Original Certificate of Title No. 22161 and also Lots Nos.20481 and 20484, of the same cadastral survey, embraced in andcovered by Original Certificate of Title No. 8066, both of theRegistry of Deeds of Ilocos Norte. These titles were issued pursuant toa decree of registration, dated 31 May 1940.

On 17 July 1962, petitioners Mateo H. Reyes and Juan H. Reyesfiled in the above stated cadastral cases, a motion for issuance ofwrits of possession over all the lots covered by both Certificates ofTitle above referred to.

Respondent Mateo Raval Reyes opposed the motion, admitting thathe is only in possession of the lots covered by Original Certificate ofTitle No. 22161, but denying that he possesses the lots covered byOriginal Certificate of Title No. 8066; however, he claimed that hehas been in, and is entitled to, the possession thereof (i.e., LotsNos. 20481 and 20484), having acquired by way of absolute sale(not recorded) from petitioners' brother, Francisco H. Reyes, thelatter's undivided one-third (1/3) share, interest and participationof these disputed lots.

After due hearing on this incident, the court a quoissued, on 20December 1962, the writ of possession with respect to Lot Nos.15891 and 15896, which writ was, upon petitioners' motion for

reconsideration, amended, on 7 January 1963, to include all theother lots covered by both titles.

Respondent did not appeal from this order amending the writ ofpossession.

Subsequently, petitioners in the above stated cadastral cases, as plaintiffs,commenced, on 15 January 1963, before the same court of first instance, anordinary civil action seeking to recover the products of the disputed lots, ortheir value, and moral damages against respondent Mateo Raval Reyes, asdefendant. This case was docketed as its Civil Case No. 3659.

Defendant therein (now respondent M. Raval Reyes) answered thecomplaint and pleaded a counterclaim for partition of all the disputed lots,alleging the same ground he had heretofore raised in his answer and/oropposition to the motion for issuance of writ of possession, i.e., he is their(plaintiffs') co-owner, he having bought from plaintiffs' brother, Francisco H.Reyes, the latter's undivided one- third (1/3) share, interest andparticipation to these disputed lots.

Pending trial on this ordinary civil case (No. 3659), petitioners presented,on 25 February 1963, in the cadastral cases aforementioned, amotion to compel respondent Mateo Raval Reyes to surrender and


16/31

deliver to them the owners' duplicates of Original Certificates ofTitle Nos. 22161 and 8066. Respondent opposed this motion.

The court a quodenied petitioners' motion, on the ground that theparcels of land covered by both titles are subjects of litigation inCivil Case No. 3659 and the same has not yet been decided on themerits by it. Petitioners subjected the foregoing order to a motion forreconsideration, but without success; hence, the present appeal.

Petitioners-appellants dispute the above ruling of the trial court,contending that, since the subject matter of Civil Case No. 3659 arenot the lots covered b

Documents

del prda vs caballero