G.R. No. 177624
G.R. No. 177624
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants,
as follows:
1. Declaring TCT No. 53814 (sic) null and void in so far as 211 sq.m. thereof while TCT
53814 is hereby declared null and void in its entirety.
2. Ordering the defendant and all persons claiming under them to vacate the 1,100 sq.m. of
land donated by Pedro Luna to plaintiff Modesta Luna and to pay P10,000.00 a year for
the reasonable compensation from their continued stay thereat to plaintiff in proportion to
the area they respectively withhold from the plaintiff.
3. Defendants jointly and severally is (sic) ordered to pay plaintiff the amount of
P50,000.00 as attorney's fees.
4. To pay the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.[7]
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, in its June 7, 2005 Decision[8] in
Civil Case No. 362-M-2004, affirmed the ruling of the MTC. The RTC ruled that while the
complaint was captioned as an action for recovery of ownership and possession, the same was
actually an action for annulment of title, and the MTC had no jurisdiction over the case.
However, the RTC, instead of dismissing the case, assumed jurisdiction over it, pursuant to Rule
40, Sections 7 and 8 of the Rules of Court, and, as aforesaid, ruled in favor of the petitioner.
Relentless despite the adverse rulings of both trial courts, respondents elevated the case to the
CA. In the assailed January 29, 2007 Decision,[9] the appellate court set aside the ruling of the
RTC and dismissed the complaint upon a finding that the action had prescribed. The CA said that
petitioner failed to question, on the ground of actual fraud, the decision or order granting the
application for free patent within one year from the issuance thereof. Petitioner likewise failed to
institute an action for reconveyance, based on implied or constructive trust, within 10 years from
the issuance of the certificates of title. Thus, petitioner's complaint was time-barred.
Importantly, the CA found that the subject property was not private land. The records revealed
that the parties claimed to be beneficiaries/donees of their deceased parents, and that petitioner
had no title to the property independent of her deceased fathers' alleged right. It was also shown
that petitioner even applied for a free patent on the adjoining lot. The CA thus ruled that the
property was, at inception, public land, and no proof was introduced that it had already been
withdrawn from the public domain prior to the award of the free patent to respondent.
On the issue of jurisdiction, the CA ruled that the MTC had jurisdiction, the suit being one for
recovery of ownership and possession and the assessed value of the property being within the
jurisdictional competence of the MTC. The prayer for the consequent annulment of the issued
titles was merely incidental to the main action for recovery of ownership and possession.
Entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that the appellate court may motu proprio dismiss an
action for having prescribed, even if the case has been elevated for review on different grounds,
where prescription clearly appears from the complaint filed with the trial court.[12]
Here, the CA correctly dismissed the case on the ground of prescription. Let it be noted that the
free patent and the original certificate of title were issued to respondent Juliana, who is in
possession of the subject property found to be a public land, on May 3, 1976.[13] Petitioner
instituted the personal action for reconveyance[14] only in May 1999 or after 23 years.
We have held in prior cases that the order or decision granting an application for a free patent can
be reviewed only within one year from its issuance on the ground of actual fraud via a petition
for review in the Regional Trial Court, provided that no innocent purchaser for value has
acquired the property or any interest thereon. However, an aggrieved party may still file an
action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust, but the right of action prescribes
in 10 years counted from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property,
provided that it has not been acquired by an innocent purchaser for value.[15] This 10-year
prescriptive period applies only when the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of the
property. If the person claiming to be its owner is in actual possession thereof, the right to seek
reconveyance, which in effect is an action to quiet title thereto, does not prescribe.[16]
In the instant case, petitioner's action to recover the property and to annul the patent and title
issued to the respondents was filed beyond the prescriptive period. Thus, it ought to be
dismissed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The January 29, 2007 Decision
and the April 20, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 90749 are
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, (Chairperson), Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., and Peralta, JJ., concur.
[1]
Id. at 220-222.
[3]
Id. at 25-29.
[4]
Id. at 43-47.
[5]
As alleged in the amended complaint, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RP-2318 (P6715) / Free Patent No. (III-6) 006542 was issued to respondent on May 3, 1976. The land
covered by the patent was subdivided into four lots--Nos. 2929-A, 2929-B, 2929-C and 2929-D.
OCT No. RP-2318 (P-6715) was then cancelled and TCT Nos. T-53811, T-53812, T-53813 and
T-53814 were issued in the names of Pedro P. Luna, Jr., Pastora P. Luna, respondents Cornelio,
Milagros, Renato, Flordelita, Aurora, Andrito and George, all surnamed Garcilla; and Juliana P.
Luna.
[6]
[7]
Id. at 86-87.
[8]
Id. at 108-113.
[9]
Supra note 1.
[10]
Rollo, p. 160.
[11]
Supra note 2.
[12]
Katon v. Palanca, Jr., G.R. No. 151149, September 7, 2004, 437 SCRA 565, 567; Gicano v.
Gegato, No. L-63575, January 20, 1988, 157 SCRA 140, 145-146.
[13]
Rollo, p. 50.
[14]
An action for reconveyance respects the decree of registration as incontrovertible but seeks
the transfer of property, which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in other persons'
names, to its rightful and legal owners or to those who claim to have a better right. There is no
special ground for an action for reconveyance. It is enough 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. (Heirs of Valeriano S. Concha, Sr. v.
Lumocso, G.R. No. 158121, December 12, 2007, 540 SCRA 1, 13-14.)
[15]
Khemani v. Heirs of Anastacio Trinidad, G.R. No. 147340, December 13, 2007, 540 SCRA
83, 96-97; Heirs of Maximo Sanjorjo v. Heirs of Manuel Y. Quijano, G.R. No. 140457, January
19, 2005, 449 SCRA 15, 26; Katon v. Palanca, supra note 12, at 579; Millena v. Court of
Appeals, 381 Phil. 132, 138 (2000). Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, further, provides
that "[t]he decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority,
or other disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court
for reversing judgments, subject, however, to the right of any person, including the government
and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such
adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First
Instance [now, Regional Trial Court] a petition for reopening and review of the decree of
registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of such decree of
registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent
purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced.
Whenever the phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or any equivalent phrase occurs in this
Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for
value." [Underscoring supplied.]
[16]
Mendizabel v. Apao, G.R. No. 143185, February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 587, 609.