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.
