HEIRS OF BIENVENIDO AND ARACELI TANYAG, NAMELY: ARTURO TANYAG, AIDA T. JOCSON, AND ZENAIDA T. VELOSO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. SALOME E. GABRIEL, NESTOR R. GABRIEL, LUZ GABRIE…

Heirs of Tanyag versus Gabriel

The Case

This is a case about a Torrens title and the tax declarations that fought against it. The heirs of Bienvenido and Araceli Tanyag sued the heirs of Jose Gabriel, asking the Regional Trial Court to declare void Original Certificate of Title Number 1035, which covered two adjoining parcels of land in Taguig, and to order reconveyance of those parcels to them as true owners, plus damages. The Tanyags claimed the Gabriels procured the title through fraud. The Gabriels claimed the land was always their father's. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of a rule every land-law reviewee must carry: tax declarations do not defeat an original certificate of title, and fraud that would open the door to reconveyance must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Procedural History

The Tanyag heirs filed their complaint for declaration of nullity of the certificate of title, reconveyance, and damages before Branch 267 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, where it was docketed as a civil case. On 19 November 2003, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint. It denied the Gabriels' counterclaim for damages and attorney's fees for lack of sufficient proof. The Tanyags appealed. The appeal went up to the Supreme Court, which decided the case through its then First Division, with Justice Dimaranan-Vidal writing for the Court and Justices De Los Santos and Lampas-Peralta concurring.

Facts

The land in dispute is about 1,560 square meters, composed of two parcels. Lot 1, about 686 square meters, was covered by a tax declaration in the name of Jose Gabriel. Lot 2, about 147 square meters, was originally owned by Agueda Dinguinbayan. The Tanyags' story begins with Benita Gabriel, who claimed she inherited Lot 1 from her father Mateo Gabriel and who, on 28 June 1944, sold it to the spouses Gabriel Sulit and Cornelia Sanga for 96 pesos. The lot passed to the Sulits' son Eliseo Sulit, then to his widow Florencia Sulit, who sold it on 14 October 1964 to Bienvenido Tanyag for 1,000 pesos. Bienvenido then possessed the land openly and continuously, fenced it, and introduced improvements through a caretaker. After his death, his wife Araceli paid the taxes. As for Lot 2, Agueda Dinguinbayan sold it to Araceli Tanyag on 22 October 1968, and Araceli declared it for tax purposes in her name.

The Gabriels told a different story. For them, the land was always Jose Gabriel's, inherited from his own father Mateo Gabriel. The earliest tax declaration in the record, from 1948, was in Jose Gabriel's name. The declared area later grew from 686 square meters to 1,763 square meters after an actual survey. Jose Gabriel died on 23 June 1987, and his wife Vicenta and their children, the Gabriels, inherited the land by extrajudicial settlement. After titling proceedings in the Regional Trial Court of Taguig, Original Certificate of Title Number 1035 was issued in the Gabriels' names on 20 September 1996.

The Tanyags alleged that in 1980 the Gabriels, through fraud, caused both lots to be placed under a single tax declaration in Jose Gabriel's name, and that Jose Gabriel had borrowed documents from Araceli Tanyag for that purpose. They filed suit on 20 March 2000. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the Tanyags had not proven fraud and that the certificate of title must prevail. The Tanyags appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the Tanyag heirs are the true owners of the subject parcels of land.
• Whether or not the Gabriels procured Original Certificate of Title Number 1035 through fraud, such that it may be annulled or the land reconveyed.
• Whether or not the certificate of title and the tax declarations in the Gabriels' names are valid and entitled to the presumption of regularity.
• Whether or not the Tanyags are entitled to an award of damages.

Applicable Provisions

Section 53, paragraph 3 of Presidential Decree Number 1529, the Property Registration Decree, provides the remedy of reconveyance for registration procured by fraud:

In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder of the decree of registration on the original petition or application, any subsequent registration procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed or other instrument, shall be null and void.

This is the very door the Tanyags tried to push open, and the Court measured their evidence against it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Tanyags failed to establish ownership. Their case rested on Benita Gabriel's 1944 affidavit, but there was no evidence that Benita, and not Jose Gabriel, was the true owner. Jose Gabriel never relinquished his claim: he declared the land in his name in 1948, four years after Benita's supposed sale, and paid taxes on it again in 1980. The municipal assessor testified that the tax declaration was reconstituted in Jose Gabriel's name precisely because Florencia Sulit was not the legal owner and had no right to convey the land.

On the second issue, the Court held that fraud was not proven. Fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. The Tanyags relied on Arturo Tanyag's testimony that Jose Gabriel borrowed documents from Araceli, but that statement was uncorroborated, easily concocted, and could not be refuted because Jose Gabriel was already dead. Even if the borrowing were true, there was no showing the documents were used to secure the tax declaration. The Court also rejected the bad-faith argument, holding that good faith is presumed and that the Gabriels, as successors of the owner, had the right to quiet their title by registering it. Their knowledge of the Tanyags' adverse claim, noted on the tax declarations, did not taint the registration, because this was not a double sale.

On the third issue, the Court applied the indefeasibility of the Torrens title. It quoted its earlier ruling in Cureg versus Intermediate Appellate Court:

[A]s against an array of proofs consisting of tax declarations and/or tax receipts which are not conclusive evidence of ownership nor proof of the area covered therein, an original certificate of title indicates true and legal ownership by the registered owners over the disputed premises.

The Court added that the presumption of regularity applies to the issuance of a certificate of title, and that the trial court's factual findings deserve the highest degree of respect absent cogent reasons to disturb them.

On the fourth issue, since the Tanyags did not prevail and proved no bad faith, no damages could be awarded to them.

Doctrine

Three rules to write in an answer. First, a Torrens certificate of title is evidence of indefeasible and incontrovertible ownership in favor of the person named in it, and it prevails over tax declarations and tax receipts, which are not conclusive proof of ownership or of the area covered. Second, the remedy of reconveyance under Section 53 of the Property Registration Decree requires fraud, and fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, not by mere allegation or uncorroborated testimony. Third, good faith is presumed, and one who alleges bad faith bears the burden of proving it; the registration of title by the owner's successors, even with knowledge of another's adverse claim noted on tax declarations, is not bad faith where there is no double sale.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, dismissing the Tanyags' complaint and leaving Original Certificate of Title Number 1035 in the Gabriels' names.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an original certificate of title prevails over tax declarations, and fraud that would defeat it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Examiners use this case to test the hierarchy between a Torrens title and tax declarations, and the elements of reconveyance under Section 53 of the Property Registration Decree.