Facts:
Pedro Tolentino who claims ownership over Lots 572 and 579 separately sold each lot to the petitioners, Bernardino Ramos. The petitioners instituted an action for reconveyance with damages against the respondents, Rodolfo Bautista and Felisa Lopez who allegedly wrongfully registered the said lots in their name. The respondents acquired their title from Lucia Bautista to whom a Certificate of title covering both lots is issued by the Register of Deeds. As Lucia’s heir, Rodolfo is able to acquire title to the lots through a Transfer of Certificate of Title. Petitioners contend that they are in open, public, continuous, and adverse possession of said lots for not less than 50 years personally and through their predecessors-in-interest and that Lucia neither claimed ownership thereto nor took possession of the same. They assail the Certificate of Title in the name of the respondents as null and void and that they have acquired the lots by acquisitive prescription. Respondents claims absolute ownership over the said lots pointing out that based from the cadastral survey, Pedro Tolentino was able to acquire only a different lot that is adjacent to Lot 572 which is the portion occupied by the petitioners by tolerance of the original registrant Lucia Bautista. In the affirmative defense respondents maintained that the action for reconveyance brought by the petitioners is tantamount to a collateral attack to the decrees of registration while asserting the indefeasible of the Torrens Title.
The lower court ruled to dismiss the petition citing the cadastral proceeding in 1940 where Bernardino Ramos did not answer to the proceeding despite his claim of possession over the lots and only Lucia filed an answer and appeared to be the lawful claimant in the proceedings thus was issued an Original Certificate of Title to the lots in dispute. The trial court presumed that everyone is notified of the cadastral proceeding, it being in rem in nature. The petitioner has 1 year from the issuance of the decree to file for the reopening of the proceeding on ground of fraud but he did not do so. Latches against him have set in for filing the action for reconveyance 36 years after. The court of appeals upheld the decision of the lower court hence this petition before the SC.
Issue:
Whether or not the registered title of the respondents can be attacked by the petitioners?
Ruling:
Petitioners anchor their claim for ownership over the parcels of land by virtue of the deed of sale executed between them and Pedro Tolentino. However, they failed to present evidence according to the forms required by law. The deed of sale was apparently lost by a fire from their counsel’s office and in lieu thereof they presented a certification from a notary public who was their other lawyer attesting to the authenticity of the certified true copy of the deed of sale. The certification however does not meet the requirement of law provided in section 20 of Rule 132 where before a private document be received as authentic it must be proved by anyone who witness the execution of the document or there is genuineness on the signature of the maker presented in evidence. They failed to present any witness to the execution of said document and they could not demonstrate the genuineness of the signature from the document as it does not bear any signature of the maker. Furthermore, even if there is authenticity to the document, the basic civil law principle of relativity of contract operates and it cannot bind third party like Lucia. Failure to register the contract of sale to the said lot, the sale was merely binding between the petitioner and the vendor. Petitioners presented evidence of mortgage of the property but those did not conform to the form required by law. The instrument did not sufficiently describe the property of the mortgage therefore it would be difficult for the court to assume that the property mortgage was the same as the subject of dispute. Their claim of possession of not less than 50 years on the property can be construed as a bare claim and it is upon the petitioner to have the burden of proving their claim of possession to the lot which they failed to prove in court. Their claim of fraud was not substantiated. Under the law, an action for reconveyance on ground of fraud prescribed in 4 years which is counted from the issuance of the registration of title to Lucia Bautista because the registration served as a constructive notice to the whole world. On one hand, an action based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years. This means that petitioners should have enforced the trust within ten (10) years from the time of its creation or upon the alleged fraudulent registration of the property. But the petitioners failed to avail of any of the aforementioned remedies within the prescribed periods. Private respondents have in their favor the law that protects holders of title under the Torrens System of land registration. Petition was denied.
No comments:
Post a Comment