ERNESTO BALBIN, JOSE ORIÑA, MAURICIO NARAG, ROSA STA. MA. SYTAMCO, BASILIO SYTAMCO, LEOCADIO SYTAMCO, AMADO V. REYES, LYDIA V. REYES AND APOLINARIO REYES, PETITIONERS, VS. PEDRO…

Petition for certiorari for the review of the decision of
the Court of First Instance of Occidental Mindoro,
Branch I, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

“1.    that the lands in
controversy be, as they are hereby declared as the private properties of the
plaintiffs with the right of immediate possession;

“2.    that the Free
Patents Nos. HV-85975, RV-86191, HV-85977, HV-85976, HV-85978, HV-85974, EV-58432, EV-94632
and EV-58631, and the corresponding Original Certification of Titles Nos.
P-3088, P-3089, P-3087, P-4010, P-4011, P-3084, P-919, P-4060 and P-920 be, as they are hereby declared null and void and therefor should be cancelled;

“3.    that defendants,
ERNESTO BALBIN, the HRS. of MAURICIO NARAG and JOSE ORIÑA, shall pay
the plaintiffs as damages, the sum of TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS per hectare
possessed and cultivated by them from the year 1963 until the possession of the
property in question has been duly surrendered to the plaintiffs, with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of this decision, and because said
defendants must have paid the corresponding land taxes due them from the said
date (1963), whatever amounts paid by them from said date to the present should
correspond­ingly be deducted from the total amount of damages herein awarded to
plaintiffs; however, defendants, ROSA STA. MA. SYTAMCO,
BASILIO SYTAMCO, LEOCADIO SYTAMCO, AMADO V. REYES, LYDIA REYES and APOLINARIO
REYES, shall not pay any amount to plaintiffs as damages as they are not in
actual possession and cultivation of the area respectively claimed by them; and

“4.    that the defendants
shall further pay the amount of P2,000.00
as attorney’s fees and cost of the suit.”

The following facts,
quoting from private respondents’ brief, are not disputed:

“Private respondents on June 19, 1962, purchased from the heirs of Juan Ladao, a large parcel of agricultural land situated at Sitios of Bacong, Tambunakan and Ibunan, Barrio Balansay, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro.  Said
respondents on June 14, 1963,
filed an application for registration of title of the said parcel of land.  They utilized as evidence of ownership, the
Deed of Sale executed in their favor by the heirs of the late Juan Ladao (Exhibit “F” thereof) the Informacion Posesoria
issued in the name of Juan Ladao (Exhibit
“H” in the LRC Case) together with the tax
decla­ration and tax receipts for said land covering the period from May 26,
1904, to January 27, 1962 (Exhibits I to I-28 of said LRC
Case) the private respondents, after the sale, declared it for taxation
purposes (Exhibits G and G-1 of said LRC Case), and
have continuously been paying the corresponding taxes up to the present; the
application for registration of title aforesaid was opposed by petitioners on
the ground that they were previously issued Original Certificates of title thru
either Homestead or Free Patent grants.  Petitioner
Rosa Sta. Maria Sytamco was issued Original
Certificate of Title No. P-3088 (Exhibit “1” on June 26, 1963, under Homestead Patent No. HV-85975; Basilio Sytamco was issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-3089 (Exhibit “2” on June 26, 1963, under Home­stead Patent No. HV-86191; Leocadio Sytamco was issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-3087 (Exhibit “3” on June 26, 1963, under Homestead Patent No. HV-85977; Lydia Reyes was issued Original
Certificate of Title No. P-4010 (Exhibit “4” on September
30, 1963), under Homestead Patent No. HV-85978; Amado Reyes
was issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-4011 (Exhibit
“5” on September 30, 1963), under Homestead Patent
No. V-85976; Apolinario Reyes was issued
Original Certificate of Title No. P-3084 (Exhibit
“6”) on June 18, 1963, under Homestead Patent
No. V-85974; Ernesto Balbin was issued
Original Certificate of Title No. P-919 (Exhibit
“7”), under Free Patent No. V-58633; Mauricio Narag was issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-4060
(Exhibit “8”) on October
14, 1959, under Free Patent No. V-94632; Jose Oriña
was issued Original Certificate of Title No. P­920 (Exhibit
“9”) on April 3, 1957 under Free
Patent No. V-58631.”^[1]

It appears that before
the filing of the present action for reconveyance and
annulment of titles on August 30, 1973, land registration proceedings had been
instituted by private respondents covering the same lands involved in the
aforesaid action.  Petitioners herein
filed opposition to the application, but because of the reservation of private
respondents to file a separate action for the cancellation of the original
certificates of title issued to petitioners herein, the land registration court
abstained from ruling on the petitioners’ opposition.

In the pre-trial of the
ordinary action from which the present petition stemmed, the following
stipulation of facts^[2] was
entered into:

 “1.   That
the parcels of land subject matter of the instant case are identified as Lot
Nos. 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 1013, 1016 and 1006, as shown in plans
Ap-10864 and Ap-10866; that these lots enumerated are embraced in Pls-21, Mamburao Public Subdivision;

“2.    That the herein petitioners were among the oppositors in Land Registration Case No. N-44, filed before
the court (CFI Occidental Mindoro, Branch I, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro) on June 14, 1963 by spouses Pedro C. Medalla and Josefina O. Medalla;

“3.    That the opposition of peti­tioners is based
on the ground that the aforesaid lots respectively titled in their names are
included in the land subject matter of the Land
Registration Case No. N-44;

“4.
   That in the Decision rendered by the
court in Land Registration Case No. N-44 dated May 7, 1969 giving due
course to the applicants’ petition for registration of title, the opposition of
the petitioners were not resolved in view of the reservation made by the
applicants to file appropriate actions for the cancellation of petitioners’
homestead or patent titles;

“5.    That the land subject matter of the instant
case are titled in the name of petitioners and included in plans Ap-10864 and
Ap-10866, which plans were submitted as evidence in the said Land Registration
Case No. N-44, and that the basis of herein respondents’ claim in the instant
case is the possessory information title of Juan Ladao, registered on May 25, 1895 before the Register of
Deeds of the Province of Occidental Mindoro.”

Petitioners made the
following assignment of errors:^[3]

“I.     That the respondent judge of the court a
quo erred in holding the validity of the possessory
information title of Juan Ladao, consequently,
erroneously holding that the parcels of land covered by certificate of titles
of petitioners are private properties of private respondents.

“II.    That respondent judge of the court a quo
erred in holding that private respondents’ cause of action has not prescribed.

“III.    The respondent judge of the court a quo
erred in holding that private respondents have personality and capacity to
institute the action, considering that the land in controversy were public
lands at the time of issuance of respective patents and titles of petitioners.

 “IV.  The
respondent judge of the court a quo erred in holding that the
lower court has jurisdiction over the nature and cause of action of private respondents.”

The first question to be
resolved relates to the validity of the possessory
information title of Juan Ladao as raised in the
first assignment of error because petitioners’ title to the land based on their
respective homestead or free patents is valid or not, depending on whether the
land so disposed of under the Public Land Act has not yet been segregated from
the public domain and passed into private ownership at the time of the issuance
of the patents.^[4]

As found uncontroverted by the lower court, there exists an Informacion Posesoria in the name
of Juan Ladao from whom private respondents Medalla bought the land. 
It is also an admitted fact, at least impliedly, same being not denied
in petitioners’ answer to the complaint, that the Informacion
Posesoria was registered on May 25,
1895.  What petitioners assail is the validity of
the registration which they claim to have been done beyond the period of one
year from April 17, 1894 to April 17, 1895, as allegedly required by the Royal Decree
of February 13, 1894 otherwise known as the Maura Law. 
The provision invoked by petitioners is Article 21 of the aforementioned
decree which reads:

“Art. 21. A term of one year, without grace, is granted in
order to perfect the information referred to in Articles 19 and 20.

“After the expiration of this period, the right of the
cultivators and possessors to obtain a gratuitous title shall be extinguished;
the full ownership of the land shall be restored to the State, or in a proper
case to the community of neighbors, and the said possessors and cultivators or
their predecessors in interest by a universal title shall only be entitled to
the right of redemption, if the land had been sold within the five years
subsequent to the lapse of the period.

“The possessors not included within the provisions of this
Chapter shall only acquire for some time the ownership of the alienable lands
of the royal patrimony, in accordance with the common law.”

It is the petitioners’
contention that pursuant to the aforecited provision,
all grants of Spanish titles to lands including possessory
information titles must be registered within a period of one (1) year to be counted from April 17, 1894 until
April 17, 1895, in accordance with Article 80 of the rules and
regulations implementing said Royal Decree of February 13, 1894; that this
requirement of the law finds support in the cases of Baltazar
vs. Insular Government, 40 Phil. 267 and Romero vs. Director of Lands, 39 Phil.
814 from which petitioners quoted the following:

“All such titles covered by possessory
information title during the Spanish Regime and not registered within
the non-extendible period of one year as provided for in the Maura Law or the
Royal Decree of February 13, 1894,
it reverts to the State or in a proper case to the public domain.”
(Underscoring Supplied).

Petitioners further
contend that inasmuch as the possessory information
title of respondents, in the name of the late Juan Ladao,
was registered only on May 25, 1895 or 38 days from the last day of the
one-year period as provided in the Maura Law, the same was patently null and
void, and the land covered by said possessory
information title reverted to the State or to the public domain of the govern­ment.

Petitioners’ contention
is without merit.  Examining closely the
two cases invoked by petitioners, nowhere in said cases can be found the aforecited passages quoted by the petitioners.  These cases did not even speak of registration
as a requisite for the validity of possessory
information title obtained for purposes of Royal Decree of February
13, 1894 or the
Maura Law.  What was actually stated in
the two aforecited cases are the following:

“A possessory information proceeding
instituted in accordance with the provi­sions of the Mortgage Law in force on
July 14, 1893 neither constitutes nor is clothed with the character of a
gratuitous title to property, referred to in Section 19 of the Royal Decree of
February 13, 1894, which provides that in order that an inform­ation may be
valid for the purpose of the said Royal Decree and produce the effects of a
title of ownership, it is indispensable that it be instituted within the unextended period of one year fixed in sections 19 and 20
of the said Royal Decree (Aguinaldo de
Romero vs. Director of Lands, 39 Phil. 814).

“The time within which advantage could be taken of the Maura
Law expired on April 17, 1895.  Almeida obtained dominion over 526 hectares
of land on June 9, 1895.  The possessory
information for 815 hectares was issued to Almeida on December 14, 1896.  Almeida was thus not in possession until
after the expira­tion of the period specified by the Maura Law for the issuance
of possessory titles and his possessory
information was of even a later date and made to cover a large excess of
land.  Under these conditions, the possessory information could not even furnish, as in other
cases, prima facie evidence of the fact that at the time of the execution the
claimant was in possession, which it would be possible to convert into
ownership by uninterrupted possession for the statutory period.  (Baltazar
vs. Insular Government, 40 Phil. 267).”

From the foregoing, it is
made clear that what was required is merely the institution of a possessory information
proceeding within the one-year period as provided in the Royal Decree of February
13, 1894 or the
Maura Law.  This fact is bolstered by the
commentaries of Prof. Francisco Ventura in his book Land Titles and Deeds,
a book widely used by law practitioners and in the law schools.^[5] Thus –

“A distinction should be made between the informacion
posesoria issued in accordance with Articles 390,
391, and 392 of the Spanish Mortgage Law in connection with Articles 19, 20 and
21 of the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894 and the informacion
posesoria issued in accordance with Articles 390,
391 and 392 of said law without regard to the aforementioned decree.  The former was the basis of a gratuitous
title of ownership which was issued upon application of the grantee and the possessory title provided he complied with the requisites
prescribed by Articles 19 and 21 of the aforesaid decree and Articles 81 and 82
of the Chapter IV of the Regulations for the execution of the same decree.  The requisites to be fulfilled and steps to
be taken are as follows:

“1.    The holder of the land must prove possession
or cultivation of the land under the conditions presented by Article 19 of the
said decree.

“2.    The holder of the land had to institute
the possessory information proceeding within one year
from the date (April 17, 1894) of the publication of the Royal Decree of
February 13, 1894 (Article 21, Royal Decree of February 13, 1894)
(Underscoring supplied).

“3.    After obtaining the informacion
posesoria, the holder of the land had to file a
petition with the General Director of Civil Administration, attaching thereto a
certified copy of the informacion posesoria asking for the issuance in his name of a
gratuitous title of ownership.  If the
said office was satisfied that the applicant fulfilled the conditions
prescribed by the law, a gratuitous title of ownership was issued to him.  Such title oftentimes called composicion gratuita
was to be registered in the Registry of Property of the province where the land
was located. x x x”
(pp. 30-31).”

Even Section 21 of the Maura Law invoked by petitioners
themselves does not speak of registration, but merely perfection of
information title, which, as already discussed, may be done by instituting possessory information proceedings within the said one-year
period fixed by the aforementioned Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, possibly
ending in the registration of the title, depending on the evidence presented.

In the case at bar, it is admitted and uncontroverted
that there exists an informacion posesoria registered on May 25, 1895 in the name of Juan Ladao.  This registration of the informacion posesoria must
have followed as the result or outcome of a possessory information proceeding instituted by the
late Juan Ladao in accordance with Section 19 of the
said Royal Decree of February 13, 1894,
and commenced within the one-year period, pursuant to Section 21 of the same
decree.  Otherwise, if this were not so,
no registration of the said informacion posesoria might have been effected in the Registry of
Deeds of the Province of Occidental Mindoro, for if
the registration thereof on May 25, 1895 was violative
of the decree, for being beyond the one-year period from April 17, 1894 to
April 17, 1895, the Register of Deeds would certainly not have performed an
illegal act.

Moreover, registration of title usually follows a specified
proceeding.  The registration is the act
of a government official and may not be controlled by the private party
applying for registration of his title. 
What is under his control is the commencement or the institution of the
prescribed proceeding for the perfection of his title for which he may be
penalized for tardiness of compliance. 
The institution of the proper proceeding is clearly what is required to
be done within the one-year period by the party seeking to perfect his title,
not the registration thereof, if found legally warranted.  By its nature, therefore, registration may
not necessarily be within the same one-year period.  If the required proceedings are instituted,
as they have to be before the corre­sponding title may be issued and
registered, the registra­tion may be possible of accomplishment only after the
one-year period, considering the number of proceedings that might have been
instituted within the non-extendible period of one year.  This is what apparently happened in the
instant case with the proceeding to perfect the title commenced within the
one-year period, but the registration of the possessory
information title done thereafter, or on May 25, 1895, after the prescribed
proceeding which is naturally featured with the requisite notice and hearing.^[6]

The next question relates to the issue of prescription as raised
in the second assignment of error.

It is the contention of petitioners that the present action for reconveyance has already prescribed.  They developed this theory in their Reply to
Rejoinder^[7]
to Motion to Dismiss, as follows:

“Even granting for the sake of argument that plaintiffs’ possessory information title is valid and effective, the
cause of action for reconveyance had already
prescribed because such action can only be instituted within four (4) years
after discovery of the alleged fraud. (Sec. 55, Act 496; Vera vs. Vera, 47 O.G. 5060; Tayao vs. Robles, 74
Phil. 114) It will be noted from plaintiffs’ complaint that the patent of
Ernesto Balbin and Jose Oriña
were issued on December 6, 1956
so that if any action for reconveyance at all could
be instituted against the two defendants, the same should be instituted before
or during the period of four years or up to 6 December, 1960.  According to the complaint, the patents of Rosa Sta. Ma. Sytamco, Basilio Sytamco and Leocadio Sytamco were issued on 17 April, 1959, so that if any action for reconveyance can lie against them, the same should be
instituted within four years or up to 17
April, 1963.  In so far as
the free patent of Amado V. Reyes, Lydia Reyes and Apolinario Reyes, it appears that said patents were issued
on 3 March, 1959, so that if
any action for reconveyance should be filed, it
should be on or before March 3, 1963.  And lastly, the patent of Mauricio Narag was issued on 14 October, 1959, so that if any action for reconveyance should be instituted, the same should be filed
on or before October 14, 1963.

“Plaintiffs’ complaint was filed only on August 30, 1973, or more than 14 years had already elapsed from the date of the
issuance of the respective titles of the defendants.  Consequently, the action for reconveyance of land titled in the names of defendants had
already prescribed.”

An action for reconveyance of real
property resulting from fraud may be barred by the statute of limitations,
which requires that the action
shall be filed within four (4) years from
the discovery of the fraud.  Such
discovery is deemed to have taken place when the petitioners herein were issued
original certificate of title through either homestead or free patent grants,
for the registration of said patents constitute constructive notice to the
whole world.^[8]

In the case at bar, the latest patent was issued on October 14, 1959.  There is, therefore, merit in petitioner’s
contention that “if any action for reconveyance
should be commenced, the same should be filed on or before October 14, 1963.  But
private respondents’ complaint for reconveyance and
annulment of titles with damages was filed only on August 30, 1973, or more than 14 years had already elapsed
from the date of the issuance of the respective titles of the defendants.  Consequently, the action for reconveyance of land titled in the names of defendants
(petitioners herein) had already prescribed.”

Even from the viewpoint of acquisitive prescription, petitioners
have acquired title to the nine lots in question by virtue of possession in
concept of an owner.  Petitioners herein
were given either free patent or homestead patent, and original certificates of
title in their names issued to them, the latest on October 14, 1959.  Said public land patents must have been
issued after the land authorities had found out, after proper investigation, that petitioners were in actual possession of
the nine lots in question, particularly in the case of the free patents.  If petitioners were in actual possession of
the nine lots, then the heirs of Ladao and the Medalla spouses were never in actual possession of the said
lots.  If the Medalla
spouses were not in actual possession of the nine lots, the alleged possessory information would not justify the registration
of the said nine lots in the names of the Medallas.

A possessory
information has to be confirmed in a land registration proceeding, as required in Section 19 of Act No. 496.  “A possessory
information alone, without a showing of actual, public and adverse possession
of the land under claim of ownership, for a sufficient period of time, in
accordance with the law, is ineffective as a mode of acquiring title under Act
No. 496.”^[9]
Although converted into a title of absolute ownership, an informacion
posesoria may still be lost by prescription.^[10]

On the other hand, the
Torrens Titles issued to the petitioners on the basis of the homestead patents
and free patents obtained by them had become indefeasible.^[11]

It would result from what has been said on the two main
assignments of errors that petitioners herein have a better right to the land
in question than the Medalla spouses.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be reversed
and the complaint of the Medallas should be, as it is
hereby dismissed with costs against appellees.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., and
Abad Santos, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., in the result.

^[1]
Respondents’ Brief, pp. 2-4; Rollo, p. 191.

^[2]
Respondents’ Brief, pp. 5-6; Rollo, p. 191.

^[3]
Respondents’ Brief, pp. 6-7; Rollo, p. 191

^[4]
Panimdim vs. Director of Lands, L-19731, July
31, 1964, 11 SCRA 628; Duran vs. Olivia, et
al., L-16589, September 29, 1961; Republic vs. Heirs of Ciriaco Carle, et al., L-12485, July 31, 1959; El Hogar Filipino vs.
Olviga, 60 Phil. 17; Manalo
vs. Lukban, et al., 48 Phil. 973.

^[5]
Same observations were made by Prof. Anatolio C. Mañalac in his book entitled “Development of Land
Laws and Registration in the Philippines,” 1961 ed., pp. 47-48.

^[6]
In Bishop of Nueva Segovia vs. Municipality of
Bantay, 28 Phil. 347, the procedure as to notice and
hearing of the possessory information proceeding is outlined
which is commenced with the filing of the proper application either in the
Court of First Instance or in the Municipal Court.

^[7]
p. 12, Petition; p. 38, Rollo.

^[8]
Gerona vs. de Guzman, 11 SCRA 153 and cases cited therein.

^[9]
Heirs of Luno
vs. Marquez, 48 Phil. 855, See Government of the P.I. vs.
Heirs of Abella, 49 Phil. 374, 379; Fernandez Hermanos vs.
Director of Lands, 57 Phil. 929; Roman Catholic Bishop of Nueva Segovia vs. Municipality of Bantay,
28 Phil. 347).

^[10]
Noblejas, Land Titles and Deeds 1965 Ed., p. 7.

^[11]
Pajomayo vs. Manipon,
L-33676, June 30, 1971, 39 SCRA 676.