Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ESTRELLA TIONGCO YARED (Deceased) Substituted by Carmen M. Tiongco A.K.A. Carmen Matilde B. Tiongco, Petitioner, vs. Jose B. Tiongco and Antonio G. DORONILA, JR., Respondents
ESTRELLA TIONGCO YARED (Deceased) Substituted by Carmen M. Tiongco A.K.A. Carmen Matilde B. Tiongco, Petitioner, vs. Jose B. Tiongco and Antonio G. DORONILA, JR., Respondents
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
546
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659
theory that registration proceedings could not be used as a shield for fraud
or for enriching a person at the expense of another.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Where the plaintiff in an action for
reconveyance remains in possession of the subject land, the action for
reconveyance becomes in effect an action to quiet title to property, which is
not subject to prescription.—In Alfredo v. Borras, 404 SCRA 145 (2003),
the Court ruled that prescription does not run against the plaintiff in actual
possession of the disputed land because such plaintiff has a right to wait
until his possession is disturbed or his title is questioned before initiating an
action to vindicate his right. His undisturbed possession gives him the
continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to determine the nature
of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his title. The Court
held that where the plaintiff in an action for reconveyance remains in
possession of the subject land, the action for reconveyance becomes in
effect an action to quiet title to property, which is not subject to prescription.
Same; Same; Sales; Words and Phrases; “Innocent Purchaser for
Value”; Definition of an Innocent Purchaser for Value.—In the case of
Sandoval v. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 283 (1996), the Court defined an
innocent purchaser for value as one who buys property of another, without
notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and
pays a full and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or
before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the
property. He is one who buys the property with the belief that the person
from whom he receives the thing was the owner and could convey title to
the property. A purchaser can not close his eyes to facts which should put a
reasonable man on his guard and still claim that he acted in good faith.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Exception to the rule that every person
dealing with a property registered under the Torrens title need not inquire
further but only has to rely on the title; One who falls within the exception
can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a
purchaser in good faith and hence does not merit the protection of the law.
—While it is settled that every person dealing with a property registered
under the Torrens title need not inquire further but only has to rely on the
title, this rule has an exception. The exception is when the party has actual
knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably
cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has some
knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts
to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of
the property in litigation. The presence of anything which excites or arouses
suspicion should then prompt the
547
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659
vendee to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor
appearing on the face of said certificate. One who falls within the exception
can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser
in good faith and hence does not merit the protection of the law.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 83-92 . Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios with
Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Jose C. Reyes, Jr. concurring.
2 Id., at pp. 93-103. Penned by Judge Ricardo M. Ilarde.
3 Id., at pp. 105-106.
548
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659
_______________
4 Records, pp. 11-13.
5 Rollo, p. 84.
6 Id., at p. 86.
7 Id., at pp. 54, 86.
8 Id., at pp. 85-87.
9 Id., at pp. 54-55.
10 Id., at pp. 117-118.
549
and TCT Nos. T-37196 and T-37194 were issued in the name of
Catalino Torre.12
Similarly, the records of the Register of Deeds showed that Lot
3246 was likewise disposed of by respondent Jose. On March 30,
1979, or barely two days after obtaining TCT No. T-4665,
respondent Jose sold Lot 3246 to respondent Antonio G. Doronila,
Jr. who was issued TCT No. T-4666 which cancelled TCT No. T-
4665. Catalino Torre also sold Lots 3244 and 1404 on the same date
to Doronila who was issued the corresponding new TCTs.13
However, just a few days later, or on April 2, 1979, Doronila sold
Lot 1404 back to respondent Jose. Lots 3244 and 3246 were also
sold back to respondent on January 17, 1980.14
On October 2, 1990, petitioner filed a complaint before the court
a quo against her nephew respondent Jose and respondent Antonio
G. Doronila, Jr. Petitioner argued that respondent Jose knowingly
and wilfully made untruthful statements in the Affidavit of
Adjudication because he knew that there were still other living heirs
entitled to the said properties.15 Petitioner claimed that the affidavit
was null and void ab initio and as such, it did not transmit or convey
any right of the original owners of the properties. Any transfer
whatsoever is
_______________
11 Id., at pp. 84-85, 87; records, pp. 28-30.
12 Id., at p. 85; id., at pp. 31-34.
13 Id.; id., at pp. 36-39.
14 Id., at p. 56.
15 Id., at p. 87.
550
_______________
16 Id.
17 Id., at pp. 87-88.
18 Id., at p. 71.
19 Id., at p. 88.
20 Id.
21 Id., at p. 101.
22 Id., at p. 89.
551
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659
_______________
552
The only issue in this case is who has a better right over the
properties.
The petition is meritorious.
The Court agrees with the CA’s disquisition that an action for
reconveyance can indeed be barred by prescription. In a long line of
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659
_______________
24 Id., at pp. 62-63.
25 Id., at pp. 68-69.
26 Amerol v. Bagumbaran, No. L-33261, September 30, 1987, 154 SCRA 396,
406-407; Bautista v. Bautista, G.R No. 160556, August 3, 2007, 529 SCRA 187, 192.
27 G.R. No. 128254, January 16, 2004, 420 SCRA 51, 57.
28 G.R. No. 127797, January 31, 2000, 324 SCRA 126, 132.
553
applies only when the plaintiff or the person enforcing the trust is
not in possession of the property. In effect, the action for
reconveyance is an action to quiet the property title, which does not
prescribe.
_______________
29 Supra note 27 at p. 58.
30 Rodriguez v. Director of Lands, 31 Phil. 272 (1915); Zarate v. Director of
Lands, 34 Phil. 416 (1916); Amerol v. Bagumbaran, supra note 26; Caro v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 76148, December 20, 1989, 180 SCRA 401.
31 G.R. No. 144225, June 17, 2003, 404 SCRA 145, 166.
32 G.R. No. 108547, February 3, 1997, 267 SCRA 339, 353.
554
Similarly, in the case of David v. Malay33 the Court held that there
was no doubt about the fact that an action for reconveyance based on
an implied trust ordinarily prescribes in ten (10) years. This rule
assumes, however, that there is an actual need to initiate that action,
for when the right of the true and real owner is recognized, expressly
or implicitly such as when he remains undisturbed in his possession,
the statute of limitation would yet be irrelevant. An action for
reconveyance, if nonetheless brought, would be in the nature of a
suit for quieting of title, or its equivalent, an action that is
imprescriptible. In that case, the Court reiterated the ruling in Faja v.
Court of Appeals34 which we quote:
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659
_______________
33 G.R. No. 132644, November 19, 1999, 318 SCRA 711, 720.
34 No. L-45045, February 28, 1977, 75 SCRA 441, 446.
35 Rollo, p. 86.
555
has to rely on the title, this rule has an exception. The exception is
_______________
36 Id., at p. 55.
37 Id., at p. 96.
38 G.R. No. 106657, August 1, 1996, 260 SCRA 283, 296-297.
556
when the party has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that
would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or
when the purchaser has some knowledge of a defect or the lack of
title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably
prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in
litigation. The presence of anything which excites or arouses
suspicion should then prompt the vendee to look beyond the
certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the
face of said certificate. One who falls within the exception can
neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a
purchaser in good faith and hence does not merit the protection of
the law.39
In this case, when the subject properties were sold to Catalino
Torre and subsequently to Doronila, respondent Jose was not in
possession of the said properties. Such fact should have put the
vendees on guard and should have inquired on the interest of the
respondent Jose regarding the subject properties.40 But regardless of
such defect on transfer to third persons, the properties again reverted
back to respondent Jose. Respondent Jose cannot claim lack of
knowledge of the defects surrounding the cancellation of the OCTs
over the properties and benefit from his fraudulent actions. The
subsequent sale of the properties to Catalino Torre and Doronila will
not cure the nullity of the certificates of title obtained by respondent
Jose on the basis of the false and fraudulent Affidavit of
Adjudication.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is
GRANTED. The August 28, 2003 Decision and November 27, 2003
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 44794 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Register of Deeds of
Iloilo City is ordered to RESTORE Original Certificates of Title
Nos. 484, 1482, and 368, respectively covering Lots 3244, 1404 and
3246, under the name/s of the registered original owners thereof.
_______________
39 David v. Malay, supra note 33 at p. 722.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659
40 Vide: Heirs of Trinidad De Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
138660, February 5, 2004, 422 SCRA 101, 117, citing Development Bank of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129471, April 28, 2000, 331 SCRA 267,
291.
557
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12