Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tiro v. Philippine Estates Corporation GR No. 170528 Facts
Tiro v. Philippine Estates Corporation GR No. 170528 Facts
FACTS:
Petitioners filed before the RTC a Complaint for Quieting of Title
against respondent Philippine Estates Corporation. Petitioners alleged that
they are the children of the late Julian Tiro and the authorized
representatives of the Heirs of the late Pedro Tiro. Both decedents were
purportedly, during their lifetime, the lawful absolute and registered
owners of the disputed land as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title
(OCT). Petitioners averred that they and their predecessors-in-interest had
been in actual possession of the disputed land since time immemorial until
they were prevented from entering the same by persons claiming to be
the new owners sometime in 1995. After examining the records found in
the Office of the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City, they discovered
that the OCT had already been cancelled as early as 1969 and was
issued in favor of Spouses Julio Baba and Olimpia Mesa; and that the
subject property, after several other transfers, was presently registered in
the name of respondent under Transfer Certificate of Title. Petitioners
contend that since Ochea who executed the document Extrajudicial
Declaration of Heir and Confirmation of Sale, which resulted in the
cancellation of OCT No. RO-1121 in the name of Julian and
Pedro Tiro, was not in any way related to Julian and Pedro Tiro; and that
since Ochea was not an heir of the original registered owners, she had no
right to cause the transfer of the disputed property and, thus, her transfer
and all subsequent transfers of said property, including that made to
respondent, were invalid. The petitioners prayed that all the transactions
emanating from the Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs and Confirmation of
Sale, executed by Maxima Ochea, be declared void, including the
transfer made in favor of the respondent; that the title which was issued in
the name of respondent be cancelled; and that the property be restored
and registered in the name of the petitioners.
Respondent pointed out that 27 years had elapsed since the
cancellation of the OCT before petitioners asserted their rights over the
disputed land. Moreover, petitioners predecessors-in-interest Julian and
Pedro Tiro did not question the cancellation of their title to the property
during their lifetimes. Hence, respondent argued that petitioners action for
quieting of title was barred by laches and prescription.
RTC dismissed the petitioners’ complaint. It ruled that petitioners
claims of filiation to Julian and Pedro Tiro were not supported by
documents. And even assuming that petitioners were heirs of the late
Julian and Pedro Tiro, and Maxima Ochea was in no way related to them,
petitioners claims had already prescribed, considering that the Complaint
was filed more than ten years since the registration of the disputed
property in the name of the Spouses Baba in 1969. Lastly, the RTC ruled
that respondent was an innocent purchaser for value who relied on the
correctness of the certificate of title in the name of the vendor.
The Court of Appeals likewise denied their appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision
of the RTC
HELD:
No. The respondent is a purchaser in good faith. A person is
considered in law as an innocent purchaser for value when he buys the
property of another, without notice that some other person has a right or
an interest in such property, and pays a full price for the same at the time
of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some
other person in the property. A person dealing with registered land may
safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title of the
vendor/transferor. The property in question had already been the subject
of five succeeding transfers to persons who were not accused of having
purchased the same in bad faith. Petitioners attempt, therefore, to have
respondents certificate of title to the disputed property annulled, must fail.
Certificates of title merely confirm or record title already existing
and vested. The indefeasibility of the torrens title should not be used as a
means to perpetrate fraud against the rightful owner of real
property. Good faith must concur with registration because, otherwise,
registration would be an exercise in futility.
Petition denied.