MELQUIADES DEMASIADO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. RAMON VELASCO, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, NATIVIDAD APLASCA, TARCILA MORALIDAD AND LOLITA MORALIDAD, INTERVENORS AND APPELLANTS.

Demasiado versus Velasco

The Case

This is an action for recovery of possession of a parcel of registered land, Lot 5169 of the Janiuay cadastre, brought by Melquiades Demasiado against Ramon Velasco, with Natividad Aplasca, Tarcila Moralidad and Lolita Moralidad intervening. Demasiado claims the whole lot through a chain of unregistered sales traceable to a supposed transfer from Feliciano Aplasca to Judge Pablo Britanico and then to his uncle Ambrosio Demasiado. The defendants and intervenors stand on an original certificate of title issued in 1936 in the names of the Aplasca brothers and sisters. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of the conclusiveness of a Torrens certificate of title against unregistered deeds, of the rule against collateral attack, and of the rule that registered land cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession in derogation of the registered owner.

Procedural History

The action was filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. After trial, the court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint and likewise dismissed the defendants' counterclaim. The trial court held that the unregistered deeds relied upon by the plaintiff could not prevail over the valid original certificate of title, and that the defendants' claim of legal redemption had already prescribed. Demasiado appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning two errors: that the trial court erred in giving probative value to the Torrens title after having earlier refused to admit it for not being duly identified, and that it erred in denying probative value to his two deeds of sale and in dismissing the complaint. The intervenors also appealed, but their record on appeal was not elevated; only their brief, answered by Demasiado, was before the Court. The appeal was decided purely on questions of law.

Facts

Lot 5169 of the Janiuay cadastre was decreed in 1934 and covered by Original Certificate of Title Number 61801, issued on December 7, 1936, in the names of Potenciano Aplasca, Asuncion Aplasca, Eniceto Aplasca and Natividad Aplasca, in undivided one fourth shares each. In 1946, Asuncion and Potenciano mortgaged their shares, corresponding to the northern half of the lot, to Ambrosio Demasiado for 400 pesos. They never fully redeemed; only 100 pesos was paid, as shown by an undated receipt. The southern half remained with Natividad, her husband Ramon Velasco, and the daughters of the late Aniceta Aplasca, Tarcila and Lolita Moralidad.

On May 3, 1955, Ambrosio Demasiado and his wife executed in favor of Melquiades Demasiado a deed of sale with right of repurchase over the lot for 1,000 pesos. On May 14, 1966, they executed a deed of definite sale for a total consideration of 2,000 pesos. Neither deed was registered. The plaintiff lived in Silay City from 1963, and when he visited the land in 1966 he found Ramon Velasco working the southern portion. Earlier, Ambrosio had filed a criminal complaint for grave coercion and a civil case for forcible entry against Velasco and Natividad, both of which were dismissed.

The trial court admitted the owner's copy of the original certificate of title, the certified criminal docket and the certified civil docket, and rejected the rest of the defendants' exhibits. It found that the plaintiff's claim rested only on the two unregistered deeds and on Ambrosio's supposed possession of the whole lot, and that no deed was ever produced to prove the supposed transfer from Feliciano Aplasca to Judge Britanico.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving conclusive probative value to the original certificate of title under Section 47 of the Land Registration Act after it had earlier refused to admit the same for not being duly identified.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in denying probative value to the unregistered deeds of sale with right of repurchase and of definite sale, and in dismissing the complaint.
• Whether or not the intervenors may still enforce a right of legal redemption over the northern portion of the lot.

Applicable Provisions

Section 47 of the Land Registration Act, Act Number 496, provides:

“shall be received as evidence in all courts of the Philippines, and shall be conclusive as to all matters contained therein (principally, the identity of the owner of the land covered thereby) except so far as provided”

This is the provision that makes the 1936 certificate conclusive as to ownership and defeats the unregistered deeds.

Section 46 of the same Act provides:

“no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.”

This forecloses the plaintiff's claim of long possession as a source of title against the registered owners.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the argument was unavailing. The trial judge's ruling that the owner's copy of the original certificate of title was admissible was made after he had originally sustained the objection to its admission, and must be deemed, even if not categorically, a reconsideration and reversal of the earlier ruling. The certificate therefore stood as conclusive evidence of ownership under Section 47.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court did not actually disregard the two deeds. What the trial judge held was that the deeds could not overthrow a valid original certificate of title, and that since Ambrosio had acquired at most the mortgaged shares of Asuncion and Potenciano, he could not have transferred the whole lot. The Court added that the trial court merely applied the accepted rule that a certificate of title covering registered land is not subject to collateral attack. On the claim of possession since 1963, the Court declined to reverse the factual finding of the trial court, the appeal being purely on a question of law, and applied the statutory bar:

“no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.”

On the third issue, the Court found no clear basis to determine whether the right of redemption could still be exercised, since what appeared was a mortgage, not a sale, of the northern portion. The intervenors did not even allege that the trial court erred in holding that the period had expired.

Doctrine

A Torrens certificate of title is conclusive as to all matters contained in it, principally the identity of the owner, except as the Land Registration Act itself provides, and it may not be defeated by unregistered deeds of sale. A certificate of title covering registered land is not subject to collateral attack. No title to registered land, in derogation of the registered owner, may be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. A seller cannot transfer more than what he has acquired, so a vendee whose predecessor held only a portion acquires only that portion.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in its entirety, with costs against the appellant Melquiades Demasiado.

Remember This

Memorize the line: an unregistered deed cannot prevail over a Torrens certificate, and registered land cannot be taken by prescription or adverse possession. Examiners use this case for the conclusiveness of a certificate of title, the rule against collateral attack, and the limits of a vendor's power to transfer.