Bacomo v. Heirs of Mingua, Sr.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 228096. October 5, 2020.]

CIPRIANO BACOMO, SUBSTITUTED BY CIPRIANA BACOMO DELOS REYES, ET AL., petitioners,vs. HEIRS OF THE LATE TEODULO MINGUA, SR., NAMELY: TEODULO T. MINGUA, JR., ET AL., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 5, 2020, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 228096 — (CIPRIANO BACOMO, substituted by Cipriana Bacomo Delos Reyes, et al., petitioners, v. HEIRS OF THE LATE TEODULO MINGUA, SR., namely: Teodulo T. Mingua, Jr., et al., respondents). — This resolves the petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Cipriano Bacomo (Cipriano), substituted by Cipriana Bacomo Delos Reyes and Celenia Bacomo Janairo (petitioners), praying for the reversal of the November 27, 2015 Decision 2 and October 11, 2016 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 98327. The CA affirmed with modification the November 22, 2011 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Puerto Princesa City, Branch 51 dismissing the petitioners' action for reconveyance.

Antecedents

Sometime in 1928, Geronimo Bacomo (Geronimo) was granted a Homestead Patent over 16.2782 hectares of land located at Bangcaobangcao, Puerto Princesa City, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. G-68 (OCT No. G-68). 5

In April 1939, Geronimo sold one hectare of the parcel of land covered by OCT No. G-68 to Teodulo Mingua (Teodulo) and his heirs. Teodulo occupied the said property. Later, on January 26, 1949, Geronimo executed a Confirmation of Deed of Sale, affirming said sale to Teodulo. 6

On July 7, 1949, Geronimo passed away. Geronimo's heirs executed a Confirmation of Sale dated September 16, 1949 over the one-hectare parcel of land sold by their father to Teodulo and his heirs. Said instrument was acknowledged before Notary Public Juan D. Bautista (Notary Public Bautista). 7

Years after, Geronimo's heirs, including Cipriano, settled among themselves the parcel of land covered by OCT No. G-68, by executing an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale of a Portion of Inheritance dated January 26, 1958. 8 In the same deed, they sold an additional 1.6195 hectares of OCT No. G-68 to Teodulo. The said Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale was acknowledged before Notary Public Federico T. Dequiña (Notary Public Dequiña). 9

Subsequently, on August 6, 1963, Geronimo's heirs segregated 51,008 square meters (sqms.) of OCT No. G-68. They registered the said parcel of land in the name of the "Heirs of Geronimo Bacomo" with the Register of Deeds (RD) of Puerto Princesa City under Transfer Certificate of Title No. (TCT) 1405. 10 CAIHTE

Meanwhile, on April 16, 1971, Teodulo secured from the RD TCT No. 241, which covers the property he purchased from Geronimo and his heirs. Eventually, TCT No. 241 was later on subdivided into smaller lots, titled under TCT No. 46025; TCT No. 46050; TCT No. 46051; TCT No. 46052; TCT No. 46053; and TCT No. 23094. 11

Twenty-five years thereafter, on February 6, 1996, Cipriano filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession of Land and Damages against Teodulo. 12 He alleged that TCT No. 241 is null and void, considering that Teodulo fraudulently transferred to himself ownership over a portion of the land covered by TCT No. 1405 and registered the same under his name. 13

On October 30, 1997, Cipriano filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and to Admit Amended Complaint, which the RTC granted. 14

During the pre-trial conference on November 4, 1998, the court was informed of Teodulo's passing. Consequently, in an Order dated November 23, 1998, Teodulo was substituted by herein respondents Teodulo Mingua, Jr., Elizabeth M. Cerdenio and Brigida M. Seracarpio (respondents). 15

On May 6, 2003, Cipriano filed a Motion to Admit Attached Second Amended Complaint, changing his action to Recovery of Ownership and Possession of Land and Damages, and impleading the respondents and the RD of Puerto Princesa City. 16

Respondents filed an Answer, 17 seeking the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prescription and laches. They pointed out that TCT No. 241 was issued in 1971, more than 30 years from the filing of Cipriano's Second Amended Complaint. 18

As for their affirmative defenses, they claimed that their family has been in possession of the property physically, openly and adversely in the concept of owners. Over the years, they paid real taxes and introduced valuable improvements without any complaint from Cipriano and Geronimo's other heirs. Furthermore, they clarified that their father Teodulo purchased portions of the land covered by OCT No. G-68 on several occasions. Said portions make up the property covered by TCT No. 241. 19

Finally, by way of counterclaim, they prayed for moral damages and exemplary damages of P100,000.00 each, plus attorney's fees. 20

Ruling of the RTC

On November 22, 2011, the RTC dismissed 21 the action for recovery of ownership. The RTC opined that Cipriano's action for reconveyance has not prescribed considering that it is based on the allegation of a void title. This notwithstanding, Cipriano failed to prove his allegation that Teodulo fraudulently transferred to himself ownership of the disputed property. Cipriano failed to establish that the Deed of Confirmation of Sale and Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale of a Portion of Inheritance are spurious. Likewise, the RTC noted that Cipriano admitted during his cross-examination that he and his other co-heirs executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate involving the lot covered by OCT No. G-68 subscribed before Notary Public Dequiña. According to the RTC, said documents constitute clear proof that Geronimo and his heirs conveyed portions of the lot covered by OCT No. G-68 to Teodulo. The documents are notarized, and are thus entitled to full faith and credit. 22 Furthermore, the total area conveyed in the said instruments constitutes 26,195 sqms. 23

Moreover, the RTC declared that TCT No. 241 and all its derivative titles are null and void, in view of the failure to RD of conveyances at the back of TCT No. 1405 and cancel the same prior to the issuance of TCT No. 241. 24 However, the RTC clarified that such defect in the respondents' title shall not affect their ownership of the property under TCT No. 241. 25 The RTC opined that Cipriano seems to be banking on a technicality after finding out that TCT No. 1405 had not been cancelled by the issuance of TCT No. 241. 26 Finally, the RTC warned that Cipriano may not renege on his and his co-heirs' obligation under the deeds of conveyance to transfer ownership of the properties to the respondents. 27

The dispositive portion of the RTC ruling states:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. DISMISSING the Complaint for lack of merit except as to the prayer for declaration of nullity of TCT No. 241 and all other titles derived therefrom;

2. ORDERING the Register of Deeds of Puerto Princesa City to CANCEL TCT No. 241 registered in the name of Teodulo Mingua and to ISSUE a new transfer certificate of title likewise in the name of Teodulo Mingua covering the same parcel of land described in TCT No. 241 after the following deeds of conveyance shall have been annotated in TCT No. 1405:

(a) Confirmation of Sale acknowledged before Notary Public Juan D. Bautista on July 7, 1949; and

(b) Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale of a Portion of Inheritance dated January 26, 1958 acknowledged before Notary Public Federico T. Dequiña.

3. ORDERING the Register of Deeds to CANCEL the following derivative transfer certificates of title which were derived from TCT No. 241, to wit:

(a) Transfer Certificate of Title No. 46025;

(b) Transfer Certificate of Title No. 46050;

(c) Transfer Certificate of Title No. 46051;

(d) Transfer Certificate of Title No. 46052;

(e) Transfer Certificate of Title No. 46053; and

(f) Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23094;

and thereafter, ISSUE new transfer certificates of title in lieu of them after the deeds of conveyances are annotated on the new certificate of title that shall be issued in lieu of TCT No. 241 in the name of Teodulo Mingua. DETACa

4. ORDERING the Register of Deeds to CANCEL all other derivative titles subsequent to the certificates of titles mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph, if any. Thereafter, ISSUE new transfer certificates of titles in lieu of them after the deeds of conveyances are annotated on the new certificates of title mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph.

No costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 28

Dissatisfied with the ruling, Cipriano filed an appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court with the CA.

Meanwhile, on December 29, 2011, Cipriano died. Upon motion, he was substituted by herein petitioners. 29

Ruling of the CA

In a Decision 30 dated November 27, 2015, the CA likewise dismissed the action for reconveyance, albeit on a different ground — prescription.

The CA elucidated that the petitioners' action for reconveyance hinged on the claim that the respondents acquired the subject property through fraud. In line with this, Article 1456 of the Civil Code states that when a party uses fraud or concealment to obtain a certificate of title over the property, a constructive trust is created in favor of the defrauded party. An action for reconveyance based on an implied trust prescribes in 10 years, reckoned from the date of the registration of the deed or the issuance of the assailed title. 31

The CA noted that TCT No. 241 was issued in the name of the respondents on April 16, 1971. From this point, the petitioners had 10 years to file a case for reconveyance. However, they belatedly filed their complaint on February 6, 1996. 32

The CA further stated that laches had set in against the petitioners. 33 They failed to exercise due diligence in asserting their right over the disputed property. They allowed an unreasonable period of 25 years to lapse before bringing the suit to impugn the validity of the respondents' title. 34

Considering that prescription and laches had set in, the CA no longer delved on the other issues raised in the case. 35

The dispositive portion of the CA ruling states:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated November 22, 2011 of the RTC of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City in Civil Case No. 2887 dismissing plaintiffs-appellants' Complaint is AFFIRMED with modification that the latter's cause of action has already prescribed.

SO ORDERED. 36

Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in its October 11, 2016 Resolution. 37

Undeterred, the petitioners filed the instant petition for review on certiorari38 under Rule 45.

Issues

The issues raised in the instant case are summarized as follows: (i) whether or not the action for reconveyance has prescribed; and (ii) whether or not the petitioners are entitled to recover ownership of the property covered by TCT No. 241.

The petitioners maintain that their action for reconveyance has not prescribed. 39 They claim that TCT No. 241 is null and void ab initio. They point out that Article 1410 of the Civil Code clearly states that an action to impugn a void contract is imprescriptible. 40

The petitioners further aver that the trial court erred in ordering the cancellation of TCT No. 1405. They relate that they partitioned among themselves the co-owned estates of their parents, including the land covered by OCT No. G-68. As a result, 51,008 sqms. of OCT No. G-68, designated as Lot 16, remained undivided. Said property was titled in the name of the Heirs of Geronimo Bacomo on August 6, 1963 and covered by TCT No. 1405. They did not execute any deed or instrument specifically selling any portion of TCT No. 1405 to Teodulo. 41

Petitioners claim that respondents failed to show any oral or documentary proof that their (petitioners') predecessors or any of their co-heirs conveyed to Teodulo or any of the respondents 20,002 sqms. from TCT No. 1405. 42 The deeds of conveyances presented by respondents merely show that there have been previous sales of portions of OCT No. G-68 to Teodulo prior to the partitioning of the property. Said documents do not prove that the allegedly sold portions actually form part of TCT No. 1405. 43

On the other hand, the respondents counter that the petitioners' action for reconveyance has prescribed. Article 1410 is not applicable considering that it speaks of an inexistent contract, which may be impugned anytime. On the other hand, the CA's Decision was based on prescription of actions. 44 Respondents further aver that the petitioners failed to question the CA's treatment of their complaint as an action for reconveyance. 45 Neither did they question the applicability of the 10-year prescriptive period. 46 Considering that the petitioners' action has prescribed, any ruling on the merits will only be superfluous. 47 aDSIHc

Ruling of the Court

The petition is denied.

Nature of an action for reconveyance

Significantly, an action for reconveyance is one that seeks the transfer of property that was wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person's name to its rightful owner or to one who has a better right thereto. 48 In a complaint for reconveyance, the free patent and the certificate of title are respected as incontrovertible. What is sought is the transfer of the property, or the title thereof, which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the defendant's name. 49

For the action to prosper, the aggrieved party must show that he/she has a legal claim on the property superior to that of the registered owner, and that the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value. 50 Consequently, the complaint must state facts that would permit the plaintiff to recover title to the disputed land, such as, (i) that the plaintiff was the owner of the land, and (ii) that the defendant had illegally dispossessed the plaintiff of the same. 51

Notably, this Court declared in Jose Toledo v. Court of Appeals52 that a characteristic relief in an action for reconveyance is when the plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the title issued in the alleged usurper's name and the issuance of a new one in his/her favor. The decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible, but the property that has been erroneously registered in another person's name shall be transferred to its rightful and legal owners, or to those who claim to have a better right. 53 It must be established that the aggrieved party has a legal claim on the property superior to that of the registered owner and that the property has not yet passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. 54

In the case at bar, both the RTC and the CA treated the complaint as one for reconveyance. True enough, the allegations spell out a case for reconveyance:

7. In January 1996, plaintiff was surprised to discover that as early as 16 April 1971, the late Teodulo Mingua succeeded in fraudulently transferring and eventually securing from the Register of Deeds of Puerto Princesa City, TCT No. 241 registered in his own name, a portion of Lot 16 covered by TCT No. 1405, with an area of 20,002 square meters to the damage and prejudice of the Heirs of the Late Geronimo Bacomo; x x x

7.01. Said TCT No. 241 is null and void ab initio since there was no deed or instrument executed by the Heirs of Geronimo Bacomo in favor of the late Teodulo Mingua selling/disposing of the 20,002 square meters portion thereof;

8. Accordingly, subsequent titles covering smaller lots emanating from the void TCT No. 241, namely: TCT No. 46025; TCT No. 46050; TCT No. 46051; TCT No. 46052; TCT No. 46053; TCT No. 23094 all issued in the names of Teodulo Mingua, Sr., et al., and other subsequent Titles, are null and void ab initio; hence, the said Titles transferred no interests and conferred no rights whatsoever over the subject property;

8.01. Likewise, any and all deeds and instruments used to convey any rights and interests therein, including the Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by Teodulo Mingua, Jr. as vendor in favor of the City Government of Puerto Princesa City as vendee, involving a road lot now known as Manalo Street, Brgy. Milagrosa, Puerto Princesa City allegedly covered by TCT No. 46053 issued by the Register of Deeds for Puerto Princesa City, are all null and void and without legal force and effect;

9. The plaintiff and heir, being a sibling of the late Geronimo Bacomo, was deprived of ownership and possession over the subject property without due process of law, causing them and their successor-in-interest irreparable damage and undue injury;

10. Notwithstanding demands, defendants failed and refused and still fail and refuse to reconvey the ownership over the subject land with area of Twenty Thousand and Three (20,003) square meters, 55 and surrender possession thereof to herein plaintiff and the successors-in-interest of his co-owners/siblings.

xxx xxx xxx 56 (Underscoring omitted.)

Nonetheless, the RTC and the CA disagreed on the issue of prescription. On the one hand, the RTC stated that the action has not prescribed, and thus proceeded to rule on the merits of the case. On the other hand, the CA dismissed the case outright on the ground of prescription.

The CA erred in dismissing the case on the ground of prescription.

An action for reconveyance based on

Essentially, an action for reconveyance may be based on fraud, an implied or constructive trust, an express trust, or a void contract. In turn, the basis for said action determines the applicable prescriptive period. 57

Particularly, if the action for reconveyance is based on fraud, it shall prescribe in 10 years reckoned from the registration of the property. This is based on Articles 1456 and 1144 (2) of the Civil Code. 58 ETHIDa

Article 1456 of the Civil Code states that "[i]f property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes." 59 As explained in Sps. Aboitiz v. Sps. Po, 60 a constructive trust is created by force of law when a title is registered in favor of a person other than the true owner. Consequently, the person acquiring the property through fraud becomes an implied trustee of the property's true and lawful owner. The implied trustee only acquires the right to the beneficial enjoyment of the property, while the legal title remains with the true owner. 61

Meanwhile, Article 1144 (2) of the Civil Code mandates that an action based on an obligation created by law shall be brought within ten years. In an action for reconveyance based on fraud, the prescriptive period to enforce the constructive trust is 10 years from the time the property is registered. 62 The registration of an instrument constitutes constructive notice to the whole world, and, therefore, discovery of the fraud is deemed to have taken place at this point. Likewise, registration serves as a constructive notice that the alleged trust relationship has been repudiated. 63

At first glance, the CA's legal and jurisprudential reasons for dismissing the action for reconveyance based on prescription are apt. However, the CA failed to recognize that the petitioners' action for reconveyance was not based on fraud, but rather, on alleged void and inexistent deeds of conveyance.

A closer scrutiny of the Complaint reveals that the petitioners clearly alleged that "TCT No. 241 is null and void ab initio since there was no deed or instrument executed by the Heirs of Geronimo Bacomo in favor of the late Teodulo selling/disposing 20,002 square meters portion thereof." 64 Patently, the foundation of the complaint for reconveyance is the absence or inexistence of any deed or instrument transferring ownership in favor of Teodulo. Accordingly, the RTC correctly ruled that the action for reconveyance is imprescriptible.

Remarkably, this Court clarified in Sps. Castillo and et al. v. Heirs of Vicente Madrigal, et al., 65 that if the action is based on the inexistence or nullity of the deed of conveyance, then Article 1410, and not Article 1456, applies. The petitioners impugned the existence and validity of the deed of sale claiming that they never entered into any transaction with any person conveying the subject property, or sign any document in favor of anyone. Thus, in the absence of consent and cause in the execution of the deed of sale, Article 1410 of the Civil Code applies, viz.: 66

Both courts ruled incorrectly. It is evident in paragraphs 9, 10 and 12 of the complaint, supra, that petitioners sought the declaration of the inexistence of the deed of sale because of the absence of their consent. Thus, following the provision of Article 1410 of the Civil Code, this kind of action is imprescriptible. The action for reconveyance is likewise imprescriptible because its basis is the alleged void contract of sale. This pronouncement is certainly far from novel. We have encountered similar situations in the past which We resolved in the same manner. One of these is the case of Baranda, et al. v. Baranda, et al., G.R. No. 73275, May 20, 1987, 150 SCRA 59, 73:

"x x x. In the instant case, however, we are dealing not with a voidable contract tainted with fraud, mistake, undue influence, violence or intimidation that can justify its nullification, but with a contract that is null and void ab initio.

xxx xxx xxx

"x x x. We have consistently ruled that when there is a showing of such illegality, the property registered is deemed to be simply held in trust for the real owner by the person in whose name it is registered, and the former then has the right to sue for the reconveyance of the property. The action for the purpose is also imprescriptible. 67 (Emphasis supplied)

The same ratiocination was rendered in Uy v. Court of Appeals, et al.: 68

Being an absolute nullity, the deed is subject to attack anytime, in accordance with Article 1410 of the Civil Code that an action to declare the inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe. x x x An action for reconveyance based on a void contract is imprescriptible. As long as the land wrongfully registered under the Torrens system is still in the name of the person who caused such registration, an action in personam will lie to compel him to reconvey the property to the real owner. 69 (Citations omitted)

Additionally, in Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc. v. Navarro, 70Sps. Santos v. Heirs of Dominga Lustre, 71 and Macababbad, Jr., et al. v. Fernando Masirag, et al., 72 this Court stressed that the defense of prescription is unavailing in an action for reconveyance predicated on an instrument that is purportedly null and void ab initio. 73

Interestingly, in Heirs of Injug-Tiro, et al. v. Spouses Leon and Lilia Casals, et al., 74 this Court further articulated that when the action for reconveyance is based on a void deed, laches shall not apply:

In actions for reconveyance of the property predicated on the fact that the conveyance complained of was null and void ab initio, a claim of prescription of action would be unavailing. "The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. "Neither could laches be invoked in the case at bar. Laches is a doctrine in equity and our courts are basically courts of law and not courts of equity. Equity, which has been aptly described as justice outside legality," should be applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law. Aequetas nunguam contravenit legis. The positive mandate of Art. 1410 of the New Civil Code conferring imprescriptibility to actions for declaration of the inexistence of a contract should preempt and prevail over all abstract arguments based only on equity. Certainly, laches cannot be set up to resist the enforcement of an imprescriptible legal right, and petitioners can validly vindicate their inheritance despite the lapse of time. 75 (Citations omitted)

In the case at bar, the petitioners denied executing any deed transferring ownership of 20,002 square meters of land covered by TCT No. 1405 to the respondents. Assuming their allegation to be true, Article 1410 of the Civil Code applies, thereby rendering their action for reconveyance imprescriptible. cSEDTC

However, it bears noting that the issue of prescription is but one aspect of the case. The ultimate question to be resolved is whether or not the petitioners are in fact entitled to recover their property. To vest title back to the petitioners, they ought to prove that the registration by the respondents was wrongful, and that the property has not passed to an innocent third party holder for value. 76 Regrettably, the petitioners failed to fulfill these fundamental requisites.

An action for reconveyance shall not lie

It is worth stressing that an action for reconveyance is always available as a remedy for a rightful owner to retrieve his/her property for as long as the same has not passed to an innocent purchaser for value. 77 An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that someone else has a right to or interest in it, and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any notice of the other person's claim. 78

As elaborated in Javier v. Court of Appeals, et al.: 79

x x x The basic rule is that after the lapse of one (1) year, a decree of registration is no longer open to review or attack although its issuance is attended with actual fraud. This does not mean however that the aggrieved party is without a remedy at law. If the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value, an action for reconveyance is still available. The decree becomes incontrovertible and can no longer be reviewed after one (1) year from the date of the decree so that the only remedy of the landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name is to bring an ordinary action in court for reconveyance, which is an action in personam and is always available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third party for value. If the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, the remedy is an action for damages. 80 (Emphasis supplied)

Notably, the petitioners related in their complaint that derivative titles covering smaller lots have emanated from TCT No. 241, one of which is TCT No. 46053. 81 They further alleged that:

x x x any and all deeds and instruments used to convey any rights and interests therein, including the Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by [Teodulo] as vendor in favor of the City Government of Puerto Princesa City as vendee, involving a road lot now known as Manalo Street x x x allegedly covered by TCT No. 46053 issued by the Register of Deeds for Puerto Princesa City, are all null and void and without legal force and effect; 82

It is clear from the afore-quoted allegation that a portion of the property sought to be reconveyed has already passed to a purchaser.

In Sps. Aboitiz v. Sps. Po, 83 this Court barred an action for reconveyance on the ground that the property has passed to an innocent purchaser for value:

Despite these findings, the Spouses Po cannot recover the property. Respondents Jose, Ernesto, and Isabel are innocent purchasers for value.

An innocent purchaser for value refers to the buyer of the property who pays for its full and fair price without or before notice of another person's right or interest in it. He or she buys the property believing that 'the [seller] [i]s the owner and could [transfer] the title to the property.'

xxx xxx xxx

However, if a property is registered, the buyer of a parcel of land is not obliged to look beyond the transfer certificate of title to be considered a purchaser in good faith for value.

Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 states:

Section 44. Statutory liens affecting title. — Every registered owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title for value and in good faith, shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted in said certificate and any of the following encumbrances which may be subsisting, x x x

xxx xxx xxx

In Cruz v. Court of Appeals:

The real purpose of the Torrens system of registration is to quiet title to land and to put a stop to any question of legality of the title except claims which have been recorded in the certificate of title at the time of registration or which may arise subsequent thereto. Every registered owner and every subsequent purchaser for value in good faith holds the title to the property free from all encumbrances except those noted in the certificate. Hence, a purchaser is not required to explore further what the Torrens title on its face indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto.

Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights over the property the court cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such an outright cancellation would be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens system would have to inquire in every instance whether the title has been regularly or irregularly issued. This is contrary to the evident purpose of the law. Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property. Even if a decree in a registration proceeding is infected with nullity, still an innocent purchaser for value relying on a Torrens title issued in pursuance thereof is protected. SDAaTC

xxx xxx xxx

The only exception to the rule is when the purchaser has actual knowledge of any defect or other circumstance that would cause "a reasonably cautious man" to inquire into the title of the seller. If there is anything which arouses suspicion, the vendee is obliged to investigate beyond the face of the title. Otherwise, the vendee cannot be deemed a purchaser in good faith entitled to protection under the law. 84 (Citations omitted)

Applied to the case at bar, there is no showing that the city government of Puerto Princesa had knowledge of, or had reasons to suspect any defect in TCT No. 241. There is nothing in said title that arouses any suspicion. Hence, the city government cannot be deemed a purchaser in bad faith.

Petitioners failed to prove their

Significantly, in Ibot v. Heirs of Francisco Tayco, 85 this Court discussed the burden of proof in reconveyance cases:

Generally, in civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. If the plaintiff claims a right granted or created by law, the same must be proven by competent evidence. The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. Hence, parties who have the burden of proof must produce such quantum of evidence, with plaintiffs having to rely on the strength of their own evidence, not on the weakness of the defendant's. In an action for reconveyance, however, a party seeking it should establish not merely by a preponderance of evidence but by clear and convincing evidence that the land sought to be reconveyed is his. 86 (Citations omitted)

In the case at bar, the petitioners miserably failed to overcome the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that they are entitled to the reconveyance of the property covered by TCT No. 241.

As earlier discussed, the petitioners' action for reconveyance was premised on the averment that the Heirs of Geronimo did not execute any instrument conveying 20,002 sqms. to Teodulo. 87 This allegation, aside from being bare and unsubstantiated, is controverted by the evidence presented by the respondents. The records are replete with evidence showing that on two occasions, Teodulo purchased portions of the land covered by OCT No. G-68.

Specifically, in 1939, Teodulo purchased 1 hectare of land from Geronimo. This was proven by the Confirmation of Deed of Sale 88 executed on January 26, 1949 by Geronimo, and subsequently affirmed by his children, including Cipriano, in a Confirmation of Sale 89 dated September 16, 1949. Thereafter, Teodulo again purchased 1.6195 hectares on January 26, 1958 from Geronimo's children, including Cipriano, as evidenced by the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale of a Portion of Inheritance. 90

Equally important, the following observations of the RTC prove the validity of the aforementioned conveyances:

First, the total area purchased by Teodulo amounts to 26,195 sqms., thereby lending credence to the respondents' position. 91

Second, the documents of conveyance are notarized. The Confirmation of Sale dated September 16, 1949, and Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale of a Portion of Inheritance, were acknowledged before Notaries Public Bautista and Dequiña, respectively. 92 Being notarized, these documents enjoy a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. Further, they are accorded full faith and credence. 93

Third, the petitioners failed to present clear, convincing and more than preponderant evidence to overcome the presumption of authenticity and due execution of the notarized deeds of conveyance. Likewise, they failed to prove their allegation that the deeds are spurious. They did not to point to any specific fact that would lend credence to their claim. 94

Fourth, Cipriano admitted during his cross-examination that he and his siblings executed the Extrajudicial Settlement. As opined by the RTC, Cipriano seemingly employed a selective memory in remembering the Extrajudicial Settlement, yet denying the simultaneous sale of 1.6195 hectares from OCT No. G-68. His acknowledgment of the execution of said Extrajudicial Settlement necessarily carries with it the admission of the sale of 1.6195 hectares to Teodulo. 95 It is absurd to treat the document as truncated by admitting one aspect and denying the remainder.

In addition, from the time of Teodulo's purchase, he and his family have been occupying the disputed property openly and continuously. They paid the real taxes thereon and introduced valuable improvements, without any protest from the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest for 25 years. 96

Furthermore, the petitioners utterly failed to prove their contention that the property covered by TCT No. 241 pertains to a different portion of OCT No. G-68 and not that covered by TCT No. 1405. They failed to present an iota of evidence to support their claim. This Court shall not be swayed by mere surmises and conjectures.

In fine, by filing an action for reconveyance, the petitioners were obligated to comply with its essential requisites, and to prove by a preponderance of evidence their claim of ownership of the disputed property, as well as their allegation that the respondents fraudulently and erroneously caused the registration of said property. Failing in these respects, their action for reconveyance was correctly dismissed. acEHCD

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The November 27, 2015 Decision and October 11, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 98327 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 9-31.

2.Id. at 34-41; penned by Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, with Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.

3.Id. at 42-44.

4.Id. at 69-83; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Angelo R. Arizala.

5.Id. at 70.

6.Id. at 71.

7.Id. at 71.

8.Id. at 72.

9.Id.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 72-73.

12.Id. at 69.

13.Id. at 36.

14.Id. at 69.

15.Id. at 70.

16.Id. at 70.

17.Id. at 55-58.

18.Id. at 56.

19.Id. at 56-57.

20.Id. at 58.

21.Id. at 69-83.

22.Id. at 75.

23.Id. at 76.

24.Id. at 77-78.

25.Id. at 79.

26.Id. at 80.

27.Id. at 79.

28.Id. at 82-83.

29.Id. at 36.

30.Id. at 34-41.

31.Id. at 38-40.

32.Id. at 40.

33.Id.

34.Id.

35.Id. at 41.

36.Id.

37.Id. at 42-44.

38.Id. at 9-31.

39.Id. at 18.

40.Id. at 18-19.

41.Id. at 20-21.

42.Id. at 21.

43.Id. at 21-22.

44.Id. at 155.

45.Id.

46.Id.

47.Id.

48.Sps. Roque, et al. v. Aguado, et al., 731 Phil. 516, 526-527 (2014), citing National Housing Authority v. Pascual, 564 Phil. 94, 107 (2007); Gasataya v. Mabasa, 545 Phil. 14, 18 (2007).

49.Abejaron v. Nabasa, 411 Phil. 552, 564 (2001).

50.Sps. Roque v. Aguado, et al., supra at 527, citing Pacete v. Asotigue, 700 Phil. 675, 685 (2012); Heirs of Valeriano Concha, Sr. v. Sps. Lumocso, 564 Phil. 580, 593 (2007).

51.Heirs of Kionisala v. Heirs Dacut, 428 Phil. 249, 259 (2002), citing Zobel v. Abreu, 98 Phil. 343, 345-346 (1956).

52.Toledo, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 765 Phil. 649 (2015).

53.Id. at 659 citing Pagaduan v. Spouses Ocuma, 605 Phil. 679, 685 (2009).

54.Id. citing Heirs of Concha, Sr. v. Lumocso, 564 Phil. 580, 593 (2007).

55. In other parts of the complaint, the petitioners mentioned 20,002 sqms.

56.Rollo, pp. 49-50.

57. Land Registration and Related Proceedings, Amado D. Aquino, 2007, p. 133.

58.Sps. Aboitiz v. Sps. Po, 810 Phil. 123, 142 (2017).

59. CIVIL CODE, Art. 1456.

60.Sps. Aboitiz v. Sps. Po, supra.

61.Id. at 143, citing Salvatierra v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 758, 775 (1996).

62.Id. at 144, citing Crisostomo v. Garcia, Jr., 516 Phil. 743, 752 (2006).

63.Id. at 146, citing Duque v. Domingo, 170 Phil. 676, 686 (1977).

64.Rollo, pp. 49-50.

65. 275 Phil. 605 (1991).

66.Id. at 609.

67.Id. at 610-611.

68.Uy v. Court of Appeals, et al., 769 Phil. 705 (2015).

69.Id. at 722.

70. 553 Phil. 48 (2007).

71. 583 Phil. 118 (2008).

72. 596 Phil. 76 (2009).

73.Id. at 95.

74. 415 Phil. 665 (2001).

75.Id. at 673-674.

76.Sps. Aboitiz v. Sps. Po, supra note 57 at 142-143, citing Racoma v. Fortich, 148-A Phil. 454 (1971).

77.Heirs of Sanjorjo v. Heirs of Quijano, 489 Phil. 722, 733 (2005), citing Javier v. Court of Appeals (15th Division), 301 Phil. 506, 512 (1994).

78.Sps. Aboitiz v. Sps. Po, supra note 57 at 168, citing Leong v. See, et al., 749 Phil. 314, 325 (2014).

79. 301 Phil. 506 (1994).

80.Id. at 512, cited in Heirs of Lopez, et al. v. De Castro, et al., 381 Phil. 591, 615-616 (2000).

81.Rollo, p. 50.

82.Id.

83.Supra note 57.

84.Id. at 168-171.

85.Ibot v. Heirs of Francisco Tayco, 757 Phil. 441 (2015).

86.Id. at 449, citing Copuyoc v. De Sola, 535 Phil. 181, 193 (2006); Delfin v. Billones, 519 Phil. 720, 732 (2006); VSD Realty & Dev't. Corp. v. Uniwide Sales, Inc., 715 Phil. 578, 586-588 (2013).

87.Rollo, pp. 49-50.

88.Id. at 60.

89.Id. at 61.

90.Id. at 62-63.

91.Id. at 76.

92.Id. at 75-76.

93.Gatan v. Vinarao, G.R. No. 205912, October 18, 2017, 842 SCRA 602, 611.

94.Rollo, p. 75.

95.Id. at 74-75.

96.Id. at 56.