AMANDO, FRANCISCO I, TEOFILA AND BENITA, ALL SURNAMED AÑONUEVO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. ALBERTO, FRANCISCO II, FLORENCIO, DAVID, MER­CEDES, EDUVIJIS AND BRI­GIDO, ALL SURNAME…

Direct appeal, on questions purely of law, from
a decision of the Court of First Instance of Albay.

Plaintiffs, Amando, Francisco I, Teofilo and Benita, all surnamed Añonuevo,
are children of the deceased Tomas Añonuevo, by his
first marriage to Pascuala Baldivina.  They brought this action, in said court, for
the partition of six (6) parcels of land-one (1) located in Legaspi,
Albay, the others in Libog,
Albay, and more particularly described in paragraph
(4) of the complaint-allegedly belonging to their aforementioned father,
Defendants Alberto, Francisco II, Florencio, David
and Mercedes, likewise, surnamed Añonuevo, are
plaintiffs’ half-brothers and half-sister. 
They are children of said Tomas Añonuevo, by
his second mar­riage to Ciriaca Apon.  Defendants Eduvijis
and Brigido, both sur­named Añonuevo,
are children of the deceased, Sixto Añonuevo, another son of Tomas Añonuevo,
by his aforesaid first marriage, whereas defendants Oscar and Fe, both surnamed
Enciso, are children of Rafaela Añonuevo,
also, deceased, a daughter, by second marriage, of Tomas Añonuevo.

Plaintiffs alleged that said parcels of land were acquired by him
during the lifetime of his first wife, Pascuala Baldivina, with funds coming from her paraphernal
property; that after her death, Tomas Añonuevo
brought said lands to his second marriage, with­out a liquidation of the
conjugal partnership with his first wife or a settlement of her estate; that
plaintiffs were then minors; that upon the death of Tomas Añonuevo
in 1950 – his second wife had died prior thereto – plaintiffs demanded a
partition of said lots; that defendants proposed that the lands be held by
defendant Alberto Añonuevo, on behalf and for the
benefit of all of the heirs of Tomas Añonuevo; and
that in 1955, however, the defendants – except Edu­vijis
and Brigido Añonuevo and
Oscar and Fe Enciso – assumed exclusive possession of
the lands and excluded the plaintiffs, as well as Eduvijis
and Brigido Añonuevo, and
Oscar and Fe Enciso, from any participation in the
produce of said lands.  Plaintiffs
prayed, therefore, that the same be partitioned and that the defendants be
sentenced to render accounts of the produce thereof, in addition to paying
damages, attorney’s fees and costs.

The defendants filed an answer, admitting some allegations of the
complaint and denying other allegations thereof.  They, like­wise, set up affirmative defenses
and a “counterclaim” or cross-complaint for the partition of nine (9)
other lots – situated in Le­gaspi and otherwise known
as lots Nos. 4318, 5694, 5705, 5765, 5805, 5881, 5907, 5945 and 7242 –
allegedly belonging to their common father and held by the plaintiffs.

In due course,
thereafter, the lower court rendered a deci­sion directing the partition of the
six (6) parcels of land described in the complaint and of three (3) of the nine
(9) lots which are the subject-matter of the “counterclaim”
(cross-complaint) – namely, lots Nos. 5705, 5765 and 5805 – and dismissing the
same as re­gards the remaining six (6) lots. 
Plaintiffs have interposed the present appeal insofar as the lower court
has ordered the parti­tion of said three (3) lots Nos. 5705, 5765 and 5805.

Plaintiffs maintain that, since Teofila
Añonuevo had transfer certificates of title to these
lots, in her name and that of her husband, Juan C. Arandia,
the appealed decree for the partition thereof vio­lates the principle of
indefeasibility of a Torrens title.

In this connection, the records show and the lower court found
that said lots were originally covered by Original Certificates of Title in the
name of Tomas Añonuevo, who died on December 17,
1950; that on May 31, 1957, plaintiff Teofila Añonuevo filed a petition for the reconstitution of said
Original Certificates of Title, upon the ground that the same were in her name
and that of her husband, Juan C. Arandia, and had
been destroyed or lost; that said petition for reconstitution was filed in
Cadastral Case No. RT-457 of the Court of First Instance of Albay;
that on August 20, 1957, Branch I of said court, to which the petition had been
assigned, issued an order granting it; that on September 30, 1957, herein
defendant Alberto Añonuevo filed a motion for
reconsideration of this order, alleging that Teofila Año­nuevo had no right to seek the aforementioned
reconstitution, the original certificates of title involved therein having been
issued, not in her name, but in that of her deceased father, Tomas Añonuevo; that on February 28, 1958, said Branch I of the
Court of First Instance of Albay granted the motion
for reconsideration and amended its order of August 20, 1957, by denying the
reconstitution of the original certi­ficates of title over the aforementioned
lots Nos. 5705, 5765 and 5805; that, soon thereafter, or on April 8, 1958, Teofila Añonuevo filed with the
same Court, but before Branch II thereof, a motion for re­constitution – in
Cadastral Case No. 506 – of transfer certificates of title allegedly covering
said lots Nos. 5705, 5765 and 5805, upon the ground that said transfer
certificates of title were in her name and that of her late husband, Juan C. Arandia, and had been destroyed or lost; that on August 1,
1958, said Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Albay
granted the motion for the reconstitution; and that, accord­ingly, Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. RT-952(NA), 951(NA) and 950(NA), covering said lots
Nos. 5705, 5765 and 5805, respectively, were issued, on September 2, 1958, in
the name of said spouses.

Defendants herein maintain, that the “reconstitution”
of these transfer certificates of title had been secured through fraud, misre­presentation
and deceit; and that, accordingly, the order for the re­constitution thereof
should be nullified, and the lots aforementioned partitioned, in accordance
with law, among the heirs of Tomas Año­nuevo,
including defendants herein.  After due
trial, the lower court rendered judgment for the defendants.  Hence, this appeal by the
plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ theory to the effect that said judgment is inconsist­ent
with the indefeasibility of Torrens certificates of
title is untenable.  The decision
appealed from does not impair the validity of the decrees in pursuance of which
the lots in question were registered under the Torrens
system, or review said decrees.  As a
matter of fact, plain­tiffs do not claim to have any such decrees in
their favor.  Teofila
Añonuevo had merely “reconstituted”
transfer certificates of title, which were issued upon misrepresentations made
by her, in Cadastral Case No. RT-506, to the effect that she and her late
husband had bought lots Nos. 5705, 5765 and 5805 from the original owner
thereof, Tomas Año­nuevo, and that the corresponding
transfer certificates of title of said spouses were subsequently lost or
destroyed.

In fact, no such transfer certificates of title had ever
existed.  Plaintiffs would have the lower
court believe that Teofila Añonuevo
and Juan C. Arandia had bought lots Nos. 5705 and 5805 from Tomas Añonuevo on December
20, 1950, although Tomas Añonuevo had
died 3 days before.  Similarly, in
their petition for reconstitution in Cadastral Case No. 457, Teofila Añonuevo alleged that
these lots and lot No. 5765 were originally registered in her name and
that of her deceased husband, which was an impossibility because
the decrees for the registration of said lots were issued in 1927, and
the evidence introduced by her in said cadastral case was to the that she and Juan C. Arandia had bought lot No. 5705 in 1933, lot No.
5765 in 1935, and lot No. 5805 in 1938.  Indeed, if these
allegations were true, Teofila Añonuevo
and Juan C. Arandia would have had transfer cer­tificates
of title in their favor on or before May
31, 1957.  Yet, the petition,
filed by them on that date, for reconstitution of the original
certificates of title to said lots, evidently proves that they then had no such
transfer certificates of title, for, otherwise, the petition would have
referred to the latter, not to the former.

Then, again, the absence of such transfer certificates of title,
despite the purchases allegedly made by said spouses from 1933 to 1938,
establishes, beyond doubt, that no such purchases had really been made by
them.  The filing of the second petition
for reconstitu­tion in Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Albay underscores the intent to conceal, from the judge who
presided it, the first peti­tion for reconstitution
and the adverse findings, made by Branch I of the same Court, in connection
therewith.

It is thus apparent that the “reconstituted”
certificates of title invoked by plaintiffs herein had been secured through
misrepre­sentation, deceit and fraud. 
This notwithstanding, the lower court has neither reviewed the order of
reconstitution in Cadastral Case No. 506, nor annulled the “owner’s
duplicate” certificates issued in compliance therewith.  It, in effect, regarded Teofila
Añonuevo as a mere trustee for the heirs of Tomas Añonuevo, with the obliga­tion to give and convey to them
their respective shares.  Hence, the decision ordering the partition, which is in accordance
with law and the elementary principles of justice, equity and fair play.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed,
with costs against plaintiffs-appellants.

Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.