CESAREO ABAN, ET AL., PALINTIFF AND APPELLANTS, VS. TEODORICO CENDAÑA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

BENGZON, J.:

This suit concerning the ownership of a small piece
of land, 600 square meters, in San Miguel, Pangasinan, is here, on
appeal, because it involves only a question of law arising from the
parties’ agreed statement of the facts as follows:

“2. The plaintiffs Cesareo, Antonio and
Maxima, all surnamed Aban, are the legitimate children of the deceased
spouses who are the registered owners of Exh. “A”;

“3.
That the plaintiff’s are in possession of about on hectare on the
western side, while the defendant and his predecessors is in possession
of six thousand (6,000) square meters more or less on the eastern side,
since time immemorial up to the present time, paying the taxes thereon
since the beginning up to the present time, paying the taxes thereon
since the beginning up to the present also;

“4. That the plaintiff likewise are in possession of the one hectare western side also since the immemorial;

“5.
That plaintiff came to discover the possession of the defendant over
the 6,000 square meters more or less, only in 1953 when they went to
the premises, assisted by a surveyor, Mr. Artemio Quintos of the Bureau
of Lands, Pangasinan, who pointed to them the meters and bounds of the
land covered by Exh. “A”; and that the defendant came to know that the
land occupied by him is covered by said title Exh. “A” only on July 3,
1955 when said land was relocated by surveyor Silvestre Quinto of
Mangaldan, Pangasinan;

“6. That during the
lifetime of the late Miguel Aban, father of herein plaintiffs, he never
disturbed the possession of the defendant or his predecessors over the
land in question, thereby allowing the defendant and his predecessors
to have exclusive benefit of all the products planted and gathered
thereon.”

Upon the above stipulation the controversy was
submitted to Hon. Rodolfo Baltazar, Judge, who held that the lot in
dispute belonging to defendants had been erroneously included in the
Torrens title of plaintiffs, who had consequently the duty, in
accordance with decisions of the Court^[1]
to reconvey it to defendant, as the latter had seasonably demanded.
Accordingly, he dismissed the complaint, declared defendant the owner
of the lot, and ordered plaintiffs to segregate it from the parcel
described in their Original Certificate of Title No. 20578.

The brief for the appellants fails to show that the
rule followed by His Honor does not fit the case, or has been modified
or superseded. Instead, it invokes the one-year period to challenge a
Torrens title on the ground of fraud— a point which has no
merit as shown by the quotations below. And contrary to their
contention, the duty to reconvey arises not only from a previously
existing fiduciary relationship; it also arises when one man’s title
happens to include through error land owned by another; but it is
essential that the title has not been conveyed to innocent purchasers
for value— as in this case.

“An
action for reconveyance is available whenever land is registered
through fraud or mistake in the name of one who is not the true owner,
the registrant is regarded in the eyes of the law as a mere trustee,
not in the technical sense, but for want of a better term. In such
capacity, he is under obligation to execute the deed of transfer in
favor of the true owner in keeping with the primary principle of law
and equity that “one should not unjustly enrich himself at the expense
of another.” The one year limitation provided in Section 38 of the Land
Registration Act for the review of a decree does not bind this remedy.
It can be restored to even after the expiration of this period, the
only condition being that the property concerned has not passed to an
innocent purchaser for value.” (Guzman vs. Vera & Urnaza, 47 Off. Gaz. 5660; Dayao vs. Robles, 74 P. R. 114.)

“The
Court of First Instance, in the exercise of its jurisdiction as a land
registration court, had no authority to order a reconveyance of a
property erroneously registered in another’s name. The remedy of the
landowner in such a case should the time allowed for the reopening of
the decree have already expired— is to bring an ordinary action in the
ordinary courts of justice for reconveyance, or for damages if the
property has passed into the hands of an innocent puchaser for value.”
(Casillan vs. Vda. de Espartero, et al. 50 off. Gaz.. 4183.)

Admittedly, plaintiff’s title covered the lot occupied by defendant as owner since time immemorial,
and their parents in whose name such title had been obtained, never
disturbed nor questioned such possession. The only conclusion then is
that through error the title extended to defendant’s land.
Hence, the order requiring plaintiffs to relinquish this land to
defendant is legally correct.

Ninety days after this decision becomes final,
plaintiffs shall submit to the court below for approval the
corresponding subdivision plan and deed of conveyence, one-half of the
expenses therefor to be paid by defendant upon findings and order of
the said court, which order shall include such directives as will
accomplish the registration of defendant’s title in the land records of
the province.

When the above modification, the appealed judgment is hereby affirmed with costs against appellants.

Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Baustista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Edencia, and Felix, J., concur.

---

^[1] Angeles vs. Samia, 66 Phil. 444; Guzman vs. Vera G. R. L-1717 April 17, 1950; Director of Lands vs. Register of Deeds, G. R. L-4463, March 24, 1953.