This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding a land dispute over Lot 12. The key details are:
1) Respondents filed a case against petitioners in 1959 seeking reconveyance of Lot 12, which respondents claimed was part of their land covered by Title No. 16817. Petitioners denied this and claimed they acquired Lot 12 through other means.
2) In 1968, the trial court ruled in favor of respondents, finding that records from previous cases in 1930 and 1927 established that Lot 12 was properly part of respondents' Title No. 16817.
3) Petitioners appealed, arguing the trial court erred in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. This Supreme Court case
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding a land dispute over Lot 12. The key details are:
1) Respondents filed a case against petitioners in 1959 seeking reconveyance of Lot 12, which respondents claimed was part of their land covered by Title No. 16817. Petitioners denied this and claimed they acquired Lot 12 through other means.
2) In 1968, the trial court ruled in favor of respondents, finding that records from previous cases in 1930 and 1927 established that Lot 12 was properly part of respondents' Title No. 16817.
3) Petitioners appealed, arguing the trial court erred in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. This Supreme Court case
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding a land dispute over Lot 12. The key details are:
1) Respondents filed a case against petitioners in 1959 seeking reconveyance of Lot 12, which respondents claimed was part of their land covered by Title No. 16817. Petitioners denied this and claimed they acquired Lot 12 through other means.
2) In 1968, the trial court ruled in favor of respondents, finding that records from previous cases in 1930 and 1927 established that Lot 12 was properly part of respondents' Title No. 16817.
3) Petitioners appealed, arguing the trial court erred in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. This Supreme Court case
Republic of the Philippines The factual and procedural antecedents which gave rise
SUPREME COURT to this petition follow. On October 17, 1959,
Manila respondents as plaintiffs, Lim Chua, Tan Tian On alias Tan Tian Una and Tan Sick Tan alias Tan Shiok SECOND DIVISION Tuan filed against herein petitioners, then defendants- G.R. No. L-36566 November 7, 1979 spouses, Urbano Javier and Leonila Albiela, with the URBANO JAVIER and LEONILA ALBIELA, petitioners, Court of First Instance of the Province of Quezon, Civil vs. Case No. 6253, for the reconveyance to the former of a HON. HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR., Hon. ANDRES parcel of land with improvements thereon, known as REYES, Hon. LUIS REYES, LIM CHUA, TAN TIAN ON alias Lot 12 consisting of fifty (50) hectares, more or less, and TAN TIAN UNA and TAN SIOK TAN alias TAN SIOK an accounting and recovery of the produce of the land TUAN, respondents. from the time the latter, i.e., petitioners herein, took Diogracias de Luna for petitioners. possession of the same in 1945 up to the time Bengzon, Bengzon, Villaroman & De Vera for private possession is returned to the former. 9 respondents. Lot 12 is allegedly a portion of a big parcel of land SANTOS, J.: designated as Lot 6, PSU-5967, located in Quezon This is a petition for review by certiorari filed on April Province and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12, 1973, of the decision of the Court of Appeals, in CA- 16817 issued by the Office of the Register of Deeds of G.R. No. 46801-R, entitled "Lim Chua, et al., plaintiffs- Quezon Province in the name of herein respondents, appellees versus Urbano Javier, et al., defendants- which parcel of land is more particularly described as appellants", which upheld the decision of the Court of follows: First Instance of Quezon in Civil Case 6253 ordering the A parcel of land (Lot No. 6, Plan Psu-5967), with reconveyance of the landholdings subject matter of the improvements thereon, situated in the Barrio of case to herein private respondents, plaintiffs-appellees Ayusan, Municipality of Dolores. Bounded on the NE. by below. a creek and properties of Vicente Gaurano, Dionisio Capino, Isidro Briones and Macario G. Caranto; on the S. On April 24, 1973, We resolved, giving without due by property of Crispo Ella; on the SW by properties of course to the petition, to require the private Francisco Natividad, Rufino Flores, Isidro Bumiel and respondents, plaintiffs appellees below to comment Margarita Valenzuela; on the SW by the property of within ten (10) days from notice. 1 On May 16, 1973 Bernardo Marquez; and on the NW. by the Cabatang they filed their comment claiming that the petition River, properties of Marcos Gaurano, Luciano Santos raises no important and substantial question of law as and Juan Poloa, a creek and property of Vicente would warrant a review of the appealed decision, since Gaurano; containing an area of ONE MILLION EIGHT only questions of fact were raised in the Court of HUNDRED FORTY NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND Appeals, and that the decision itself "will show SEVENTY-TWO SQUARE METERS, (1,849,172), more or conclusively" that it was based on the findings of fact of less. 10 respondent Court. 2 In a resolution of May 21, 1973, We gave due course to the petition. 3 It was further alleged that on April 10, 1930, in Expediente No. 1509, G.L.R.O. Record No. 25133, and On September 29, 1973, petitioners, defendants- in Expediente No. 1679, G.L.R.O. Record No. 26112 in appellants below filed their brief. 4 Respondents' brief which Cosme U. Castillo and Florentina Arcoires were having been filed out of time, We resolved on applicants, said Lot 12 was ordered excluded from Psu- December 17, 1973 to expunge the said brief from the 16536, G.L.R.O. Record No. 25133 and in Plan Psu- records, and to return the same to the said parties. 5 On 13449, G.L.R.O. Record No. 26112 for the reason that January 10, 1974, the case was considered submitted the same was already awarded to herein respondents for decision without respondents' brief. 6 On January 26, as owners in Expediente No. 356, Record No. 14322. 11 1974, respondents, through counsel, filed a petition for leave to file the incorporated memorandum, 7 but We In an amended answer filed on November 11, 1959, resolved on February 8, 1974 to deny the same. 8 defendants below, now petitioners denied the material averments of the complaint and pointed out that Lot 12 1 could never be a part of Lot 6, Plan Psu-5967, because litigation expenses and that in the event that plaintiffs- between the two lots there exists a big river more than respondents are declared the lawful owners of the lot in fifty (50) meters wide and more than twenty (20) question, they be reimbursed the amount of meters deep known as the Guhit River which serves as P150,000.00 for the reasonable value of improvements the natural boundary between the municipalities of they introduced thereon consisting of a Dolores and Candelaria of Quezon Province; that Lot house, camarin made of strong materials and various No. 6, Plan Psu-5967 is situated within the jurisdiction fruit trees. 14 of Dolores, Quezon while Lot No. 12 is situated within the jurisdiction of Candelaria, Quezon. 12 On June 25, 1968 the court a quo rendered a decision the pertinent portions of which read as follows: As special defenses, defendants-petitioners After a careful scrutiny and deliberation on the alleged inter alia: evidence presented by the plaintiffs and the defendants (1) that they acquired Lot No. 12 partly by purchase and and after a long search in the archive of this court for partly by inheritance and they, as well as their the Expediente of Case No. 1679, Record No. 26112, predecessors-in-interest, have been in possession of the Land Registration Case No. 1509 and Case No. 356 same adversely, publicly, continuously, peacefully, and which involves said records, the court has arrived at the in the concept of owners against the whole world since ineludable (sic) conclusion that the property in the Spanish time up to the present; question, consisting of about sixty (60) hectares, more (2) that they have title to it granted by the Spanish or less, and known as Lot No. 12, Psu-13449, now Psu- government on March 11, 1888; 16536-Amd. GLRO Record No. 27112 is included and (3) that the lot in question had been adjudicated to comprised within Plan Psu-5967, for Lot No. 6, GLRO defendants-petitioners' predecessors-in-interest by the Record No. 14232. That Lot No. 6 covering and which Court of First Instance of Tayabas (now Quezon) in the includes lot No. 12, the property in question, is covered decision dated January 14, 1930 rendered in Land by Transfer Certificate of 'Title No. 16817 of the Register Registration Cases Nos. 1509 and 1679; of Deeds of Quezon and issued in the name of the (4) that they have declared the land for tax purposes herein plaintiffs; that the defendant Urtano Javier, since since 1906 paying taxes therefor; 1924, knew of the fact that the property in question, Lot (5) that they have cleared the land and planted on it No. 12. plan Psu-13449, now Psu-16536-Amd, is a part numerous trees, like coconuts, coffee, bananas, and parcel of Lot No. 6. mangoes, lanzones, oranges, avocado, jack fruits and bamboos, without any interference from plaintiffs- This conclusion of the Court is supported by the records respondents or their predecessors-in-interest; of Case No. 1679 wherein the defendant Urbano Javier (6) that plaintiffs-respondents had never been the was one of the oppositors; Case No, 356, and Land owners and possessors of Lot No. 12 or portion thereof, Registration Case No. 1509. From the records of Case and if the same had been included in their title, i.e. TCT No. 1679, the Chief Surveyor of the General Land No. 16817 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon Province, Registration Office filed with this Court on February 15, the registration and issuance of the same in their favor 1927 a manifestation calling the attention of the Court had been secured thru fraud and deceit, by making it to the fact that the land described in plan Psu-13449, appear in the application for registration and the Record No. 26112 which refer to Lot No. 12 and which is notices of publication that said Lot No. 6 belonged to the property in question, is also included in plan Psu- them and is within the jurisdiction of Dolores, Quezon, 5967 for Lot No. 6. This Chief Surveyor of the General which is not true since the same is within the Land Registration Office again on April 28, 1939 filed jurisdiction of Candelaria, Quezon, thus deceiving the another manifestation reiterating his previous whole world of the proper location of the land subject manifestation of February 15, 1927 and at the same of registration and publication; and time informing this court that Lot No. 6 of Plan Psu- (7) that if plaintiffs-respondents have cause or causes of 5967 has already been adjudicated to the herein action the same have already been barred by the plaintiffs as could be found in Expediente 356, GLRO statute of limitations. 13 Record No. 14912 and that in said plan Psu-5967 for Lot No. 6, is included Lot No. 12 (the property in question) By way of counterclaim, defendants-petitioners claimed of plan Psu-13449 and in said manifestation of the Chief P5,000.00 for attorney's fees and P1,000.00 for Surveyor of the General Land Registration Office, he 2 recommended to this Court the issuance of an order for 2. Ordering the defendants to surrender the possession the exclusion from plan Psu-16536, GLRO Record No. of the same to the plaintiffs; 15113 and plan Psu-13449, GLRO Record No. 26112 3. Ordering the defendants to render an accounting of involving Lot No. 12, from portion now in conflict with the fruits received by them from 1945 up to the time Lot No. 6 of Plan Psu-395967 which was included and they shall deliver possession to the plaintiffs; formerly decreed in Expediente 356, GLRO Record No. 4. To pay the plaintiffs the amount of P20,000.00 as 14232 in favor of the herein plaintiffs. attorney's fees; and to pay the cost of the proceedings. 15 From the indubitable document found in the record of the court, one could readily see that the claim of the Appellants, now petitioners, appealed the above defendants to the effect that Lot No. 12 which is the decision to respondent Court of Appeals. On January 31, property in question, is not a part of lot No. 6 is 1973 the said Court rendered a decision affirming that untenable, the defendants' contention that the of the court a quo, with the modification that the award commissioner's report, Exhibit "X", and the plotted area of attorney's fees be disallowed on the ground that in conflict prepared by the court's commissioner, should appellants, petitioners herein, did not act with evident not be admitted and given credit because the I.R. bad faith in occupying the land in question. 16 Motion for (Investigation Report) 268 wherein the commissioner's reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision having report was based was not presented finds no merit been denied, appellants-petitioners resorted to this because the commissioner's report is confirmed by the Court by way of this petition for review by certiorari. manifestation of the Chief Surveyor of the General Land Registration Office filed with this court dated February Petitioners aver in their brief before this Court that the 15, 1927 and April 18, 1939. Court of Appeals erred — (1) in holding that there was no fraud in the registration With respect to the claim of the defendants that they of Lot No. 12, Plan Psu-16536-AMD-3; acquired the property by prescription, the same is (2) in holding that the cause of action of the private without merit taking into consideration that the respondents has not been barred by the Statute of defendant Urbano Javier knew that the property in Limitation or by laches; question is within lot No. 6 and covered by a certificate (3) in not ordering the private respondents to reconvey of title in favor of the plaintiffs since 1924 when he filed the land in question to the petitioners; and an opposition to the registration of the land in question (4) in not ordering private respondents to pay for the and, therefore, could not be said to have acted in good improvements introduced by them on the land in faith for the purpose of applying the provision of the question from 1945. 17 Civil Code in ordinary prescription. Neither could the defendants acquire the property by ordinary We shall now consider and resolve the foregoing prescription because the defendant has not possessed in seriatim. the property for a period of thirty (30) years. Finally, the 1. Defendants-petitioners assail the registration of the defendant could not acquire the property in question land in question (Lot No. 12, Plan Psu-16536-AMD-3) as for the simple reason that the same is titled in the name having been secured through fraud and of the plaintiffs and as such the law and jurisprudence misrepresentation, considering that in the Notice of says that no title to registered land may be acquired by Initial Hearing in Land Registration Case No. 365, prescription or adverse possession. (Section 46, Act No. G.L.R.O. Record No. 14232, Lot No. 6, which, as found 496; Rodriguez , Sr. vs. Francisco, L-12039, June 30, by the lower court includes Lot No: 12, was made to 1961). appear as situated in Barrio Ayusan, Municipality of Dolores only, when in fact it is also situated in Barrio VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, and by Masalocot Municipality of Candelaria, both of the preponderance of evidence, the court hereby renders province of Quezon, thereby depriving the whole world, judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the including the petitioners, defendants below, of their defendants: opportunity to oppose the registration thereof. In this 1. Declaring the plaintiffs as the owners of the land in connection, respondent Court of Appeals explicitly question; found that "after going over the records, the pleadings and the evidence adduced, We found no trace of fraud 3 and misrepresentation in the procurement of the In a similar case 22 for recovery of possession of transfer certificate of title. 18 Fraud as a legal basis for registered land, the defendant set up the defense of review of a decree means actual or positive fraud as prescription and title in himself through "open, distinguished from constructive or legal fraud. 19 continuous, exclusive and public and notorious possession under claim of ownership, adverse to the Since the existence or attendance of actual or positive entire world ... from time immemorial" and that the fraud is a question of fact, and respondent Court having registration of the land in dispute was obtained through ruled out the same, We have no basis to sustain "fraud or error and without knowledge (of) or notice defendants-petitioners' contention that it attended the either personal or thru publication to defendant and/or procurement of the title. The lot in question, Lot No. 12, predecessors-in-interest." 'This Court there held, Plan Psu-16536-AMD was also found to be "part and citing Sorongon v. Makalintal, 23 thus: parcel of Lot No. 6" for which TCT No. 16817 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon was issued on July 9, 1941 As the land in dispute is covered by plaintiff's Torrens in the name of plaintiffs, now respondents. 20 Certificate of Title and was registered in 1914, the decree of registration can no longer be impugned on This factual finding stands in the absence of weighty the ground of fraud, error or lack of notice to considerations to warrant its reversal. As held defendant, as more than one year has already elapsed in Evangelista & Co., et al., v. Abad Santos21 "(I)t is not from the issuance and entry of the decree. Neither the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh could the decree be collaterally attacked by any person such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being claiming title to, or interest in, the land prior to the limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been registration proceedings. committed by the lower court." Defendants', now petitioners', position is untenable, the Moreover, the factual conclusion in the case at bar, as established rule being that one cannot acquire title to a in Evangelista & Co., et al. v. Abad Santos, has been registered land by prescription or adverse possession. arrived at after weighing both the testimonial and Thus, in the same case of Tuason v. Bolanos, supra, this documentary evidence presented. Finally, the decree of Court reiterated this principle when it held: registration has long become final, absent a showing ... Nor could title to that land in derogation of that of that the same was questioned within one (1) year after plaintiff, the registered owner, be acquired by the entry thereof was made. Under Section 38 of the prescription or adverse possession. (Section 46, Act No. Land Registration Act, as amended, the person allegedly 496). Adverse, notorious and continuous possession deprived of the land by a decree of registration under claim of ownership for the period fixed by law is obtained by fraud should file in the competent Court of ineffective against a Torrens title. (Valiente vs. Judge of First Instance a petition for review within one year after CFI of Tarlac, etc., 45 Off. Gaz., Supp. 9, p. 43) and it is the entry of the decree provided no innocent purchaser likewise settled that the right to secure possession for value has acquired an interest. Thus, granting that under a decree of registration does not prescribe. there was actual or positive fraud in securing the title, (Francisco vs. Cruz, 43 Off. Gaz., 5105, 5109-5110) A defendants-petitioners are now barred from recent decision of this Court on this point is that questioning the same. rendered in the case ofJose Alcantara, et al. vs. Mariano, et al., 92 Phil. 796 ... 2. Petitioners next contend that respondents' cause of action has already been barred by the statute of Hence, defendants-petitioners' claim that plaintiffs- limitations or by laches since they never asserted their respondents' cause of action has prescribed is without right over the land in question with petitioners, merit. defendants below, were in continuous, public and peaceful possession thereof during the period from On the defense of laches, petitioners rely on the December 29, 1927 when the Original Certificate of authority of Mejia de Lucas vs. Gamponia, 100 Phil. 277 Title was issued up to October 17, 1959 when the (1956). There is no parallelism between the case at bar complaint was filed, and, therefore, the land in question and that cited by petitioners. In the Mejia de Lucas case, should be reconveyed to them. which was an action for reconveyance, the land was acquired by Domingo Mejia by means of free patent. 4 Eleven (1 1) days after the issuance of the patent and This circumstance obtaining in the Mejia de Lucas case before that of the certificate of title, Domingo Mejia is not present in the case at bar. Here, there are no sold the land to Zacarias Ciscar who immediately took intervening rights of third persons which may be possession and enjoyed the fruits thereof. Upon the affected or prejudiced by a decision directing the return latter's death the land was included in the distribution of Lot No. 12 to plaintiffs-respondents, Hence, the of his estate and adjudicated to Roque Sanchez who in equitable defense of laches will not also apply as against turn sold the same to Andres Gamponia, the defendant. the registered owners in this case. The time during which the land in question was successively held in possession by Ciscar, Sanchez and 3. The third assigned error does not raise an issue, and Gamponia covered a period of 37 years. Meanwhile, is merely a consequence of the first and second Domingo Mejia died leaving his brother, Pedro Mejia, as assigned errors. In the light of our resolution therein as his only surviving kin. When the latter also died, he was shown in the foregoing, the same is without merit. survived by his daughter Concordia Mejia de Lucas, the plaintiff therein. 4. As regard the 4th and last issue, We agree with respondent Court of Appeals' finding that petitioners On the foregoing facts, this Court upheld the equitable did not act with evident bad faith in occupying the land defense of laches in this wise: in question. This being likewise a question of fact, and Upon a careful consideration of the facts and there being substantial evidence in the records to circumstances, we are constrained to find, however, support the finding, We reiterate the established that while no legal defense to the action lies, an principle applied in Evangelista v. Abad Santos, et al., equitable one lies in favor of the defendant and that is, supra, and a host of other cases cited, that as a rule the the equitable defense of laches. No (sic, should be We) same should not be disturbed. hold that the defense of prescription or adverse possession in derogation of the title of the registered As possessors in good faith, petitioners are entitled to owner Domingo Mejia does not lie, but that of the the fruits received before their possession was legally equitable defense of laches. interrupted 26 upon receipt of judicial summons 27 in connection with the filing of the complaint for Otherwise stated, We hold that while defendant may reconveyance on October 17, 1959. 28 not be considered as having acquired title by virtue of his and his predecessors' long continued possession for However, the records do not show when the summons 37 years, the original owner's right to recover back the were received by the defendants-spouses, Javier. In the possession of the property and the title thereto from absence of such proof and in the interest of justice, We the defendant has, by the long period of 37 years and hold that possession in good faith was legally by patentee's inaction and neglect, been converted into interrupted on November 11, 1959, when their a stale demand. 24 amended answer was filed,* — which is less than a month from the date the summons was apparently received. For the difference of a few days or about two (2) weeks in reckoning the starting date of possession in bad faith will It can be readily seen that in the above-cited case the not materially affect the prevailing party's entitlement to the fruits of the holding land in question came into the possession of the since the same will be reckoned seasonally. Petitioners should also be refunded the necessary and useful expenses, with the right to retain the land until defendant-appellant Gamponia after a series of reimbursed of the same, pursuant to Article 546 of the Civil Code. Under the said transfers from Domingo Mejia, the original owner and provision, respondents have the option to refund the amount of useful expenses or to pay the increase in value which the land may have acquired by reason plaintiff-appellee's (Mejia de Lucas') predecessor-in- thereof. In this connection, petitioners have placed the market value of interest to three other persons and their successors-in- improvements on the property consisting of various fruit trees, bamboos, a house and camarin made of strong materials, at P150, 000.00 29 and this amount does interest, whose rights and obligation would have been not appear to be disputed. The average share of the owner was likewise affected by a contrary decision. Said the Court: compromised at sixty (60) cavans per year, 30 at an average price of seven pesos (P7.00) per cavan 31 as of the date of the hearing on September 23, 1960.
... All of these transfer(s) from Zacarias Ciscar to his
In view of Article 544 of the Civil Code, supra, heirs, to Roque Sanchez and to defendant Andres petitioners shall be accountable for the fruits of subject Gamponia, acts which covered a period of 37 years, property only after 1959, not from 1945. would all have to be undone and the respective rights and obligations of the parties affected adjusted, unless WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is the defense is sustained. 25 hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that 5 petitioners render an accounting of the entire produce of the holding from November 11, 1959, which, with respect to palay crop had been fixed at sixty (60) cavans a year at seven pesos (p7.00) per cavan as of September 23, 1960, up to the time the subject land is actually reconveyed to private respondents. The value of necessary and useful expenses due petitioners in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos P150,000.00) having been proved and not controverted, no further proof is required.
Let the records of this case be remanded to the Court of
origin for the determination of the value of the entire produce, in addition to the palay crop, to which private respondents are entitled from November 11, 1959 to the time possession of subject property is delivered to them by petitioners. SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Antonio and Abad Santos, JJ.,
concur. Aquino, J., in the result. Concepcion Jr., * took no part.
Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott versus John F.A. Sandford
December Term, 1856.