Pacifico Garing v Heirs of Marco Silva, et. al. GR No. 150173, September 5, 2007 (532 SCRA 294)

Indefeasibility of TorrensTitle

Facts:

Pacifico Garing and his wife filed before the RTC complaint for reconveyance of property alleging that they are the lawful possessor of the Lot C of a subdivision plan bounded southeast by the Mangop River. Over the years accretion caused by the Mangop River led to the formation of land between the river and Lot C. He alleges that he and his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of this land formation and cultivated the same. Marcos Silva informed him that the two lots are within the boundaries of his property and was later ordered to stop gathering coconuts from the said lots. They assail the Original Cert. of Title issued to Marcos Silva to have unlawfully included in its Lot No. 4891-B the two parcels of land they allegedly possess. The heirs of Silva answered that they are the lawful owner of the said lots and that the petitioner forcibly with threat took possession of the said lots. Pending the case for reconveyance of property, Jose Acosta, another respondent filed a motion for intervention. He alleges to have purchased the two lots from the heirs of Silva as shown by extrajudicial partition and simultaneous sale and contends that the petitioners were present when they have the lot surveyed. They did not raise any objection thereto. He further raise that the original registration for Lot No. 4891-B was on Aug. 5, 1969 and the petitioner filed its complaint only on March 14, 1984 thus the action has already prescribed. 

The lower court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit declaring the respondents as the lawful owner of the lot in dispute. On appeal, the CA affirmed the lower court decision holding that the petitioner’s claim that the formation of the lot was due to accretion is without any supporting evidence. In the absence of concrete proof, it is proper for the court to rule that the said lot is included in the title of respondent covering Lot No. 4891-B. Jose Acosta has the right to rely solely on what appears on the certificate of title of Silva as the vendor of the property except when he is required to make the necessary inquiry in case of any cloud in the ownership of the property. Under the Torrens Law, the Original Certificate of Title and that of the owner’s duplicate certificate copy can be received as evidence in all Philippine courts and shall be conclusive on all matters contained therein and principally with regards to the identity of the property owner. And if there are pre-existing claims and liens which existed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Title, they are cut off if not noted thereon and the certificate so issued binds the whole world.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are the lawful owner of the land in dispute.

Ruling:

It was held that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and only questions of law may be raised before it. It however held that the findings of facts by the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive.