G.R. No. L-18060. July 25, 1967
REMIGIO JOAQUIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. ISIDRA CUJUANGCO, JOSE CUJUANGCO, JR., RAMON CUJUANGCO, LOURDES CUJUANGCO, JUAN CUJUANGCO, EDUARDO CUJUANGCO, JR., AURORA CUJUANGCO, IS…
MAKALINTAL, J.:
Plaintiff interposed this appeal as a pauper from the order of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija dismissing the
complaint upon defendants’ motion on the ground that it fails to state a cause
of action and is barred by the statute of limitations.
Four parcels of land are involved in this action. The pertinent allegations in the complaint
are paraphrased in the order appealed from as follows:
“Plaintiff alleges in the amended complaint that he is the intestate and
testate heir of his deceased uncle Pedro Joaquin who died on March 21, 1914 and
who left the four parcels of land enumerated in paragraph 2 of the complaint;
that parcel (a) was judicially administered from 1914 by the deceased spouses
Marcelo Garcia and Alberta Zamora, but notwithstanding that they were merely
administrators, by means of fraud, they procured the registration of the said
parcel of land with OCT 1579 and transferred the same land by means of TCT No.
2918 in favor of the defendant Isidra Cojuangco and the deceased Jose Cujuangco
Sr., grandfather and predecessor of the other defendants, who accepted the
transfer knowing that it was the property of the deceased Pedro Joaquin and
that the spouses Marcelo Garcia and Alberta Zamora were merely administrators
of the same parcel of land.
It is alleged also that the parcel of land described in paragraph
(b) of paragraph 2 was the property of the deceased Pedro Joaquin but that
notwithstanding that Lorenzo Mendoza was only an administrator or encargado of the deceased Pedro Joaquin, he procured, thru
fraud, the registration of the
parcel with OCT No. 4695, and transferred the same about the year 1925 by means
of TCT 10487 in favor of Isidra Cojuangco
and the deceased Jose Cojuangco Sr., who accepted
the same knowing that it was the property of Pedro Joaquin and that Lorenzo
Mendoza was merely administrator thereof.
It is alleged also that the parcels of land described in paragraphs
3 and 4 was and still is registered under OCT No. 161 in the name of the
spouses Pedro Joaquin and Teodora Garcia; that Teodora Garcia died on October 24, 1913; that during their
lifetime they sold these two parcels of land with pacto
de retro to Marcelino de Santos redeeming the same
within the stipulated period; that, thereafter, they mortgaged the same for
P8,640.00 to secure a debt which they contracted from the spouses Isidra Cojuangco and Jose Cojuangco Sr., and that when the plaintiff offered to redeem
the land and to pay the said sum at various times since 1917, the defendant
said that the land had been sold to them by Pedro Joaquin and Teodora Garcia; and that it was only recently that he had
discovered that OCT No. 161 had not been transferred to anyone altho it is true there
existed in the office of the Register of Deeds a document of sale in favor of
Jose Cojuangco Sr., which document, however, is
absolutely null because it did not express the true intention of the parties,
and because the signature which appears therein is not the genuine signature of
Pedro Joaquin, and that of Teodoro Garcia is not her
signature as she did not know how to sign, and that therefore any transfer of
TCT which cancels OCT No. 161 was fraudulently procured.”
The prayer in the
complaint asks: (1) that plaintiff be
declared owner of the four parcels aforementioned, although with respect to
the last two his right to enter into possession thereof is subject to the
previous payment to defendants of the mortgage indebtedness of P8,640.00; (2) that defendants be ordered to pay damages; and
(3) that defendants be ordered to transfer to plaintiff the certificates of
title covering the disputed properties.
For purposes of the motion to dismiss the averments in the
complaint are hypothetically admitted.
Defendants, however, were allowed to present evidence to supply certain
facts pertinent and material to the motion, and said facts are not denied. It appears, with respect to the first parcel
(identified as parcel (a) in the order of dismissal) that pursuant to a decree
in registration case No. 563, G. L. R. O. Rec. No. 14740 original certificate
of title No. 1579 was issued as
early as 1921 in the names of the spouses Marcelo Garcia and Alberta Zamora,
and that the transfer in favor of defendants Jose Cojuangco,
Sr. (now deceased) and Isidra Cojuangco
took place not long thereafter, those transferees obtaining transfer
certificate of title No. 2918 in their own names in 1928, thirty-one years before
the present action was filed in 1959.
With respect to the
second parcel (identified as parcel
(b) in the order appealed from) the same was registered under original
certificate of title No. 4695 in the name of Lorenzo Mendoza in 1925, pursuant
to a decree in G.L.R.O. Cad. Rec. No. 390, and then conveyed by him to Isidra Cojuangco and Jose Cojuangco, Sr., also in 1925. Transfer Certificate of title No. 10487 was issued in 1936 in the name of Jose
Cojuangco, Sr. alone.
It is clear that as far as
these two parcels are concerned
the action is barred both by extinctive and by acquisitive prescription. In the first place the question of ownership
was settled in the land registration proceedings as a result of which the
corresponding original certificates of title were issued in 1921 and 1925,
respectively. Under section 38 of the
Land Registration Act a decree of registration quiets title to the land definitely,
subject only to reopening on the ground of fraud, upon petition of the party
defrauded within a period of one year.
It seems, however, that the action is one for reconveyance,
on the theory that the original registered owners – the spouses Marcelo Garcia
and Alberta Zamora in regard to the first parcel, and
Lorenzo Mendoza in regard to the second – were the administrators of those
lands, and hence held them in a fiduciary capacity. Even assuming that this was true, the
disabilities imposed by such relationship did not extend to the transferees of
said administrators, who acquired the land for value and claimed adverse title
in themselves. The action for reconveyance on the theory of trust might prosper, if at
all, as against the trustees and provided they still hold the properties, but
not as against third persons who do not occupy the same fiduciary position.
In any event it is not denied that defendants acquired the lands
and obtained transfer certificates of title in their names in 1928 and 1936,
respectively, and that since then their possession has been adverse. Whatever may be said, therefore, as to the
nature of the possession of their immediate predecessors, and irrespective of
the fact that said defendants had a right to rely on the former’s
certificates of title and became registered owners themselves upon the conveyance of the
lands to them, their adverse possession ripened into ownership by prescription
for 10 years, according to Section 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and bars
an action for recovery thereafter.
Plaintiff’s allegation relative to the third and fourth parcels
is that they were merely mortgaged by Pedro Joaquin and his wife to Isidra Cojuangco and the late
Jose Cojuangco Sr. to secure a loan of P8,640.00. Defendants
have shown, on the other hand, that while these parcels were registered in the
names of the spouses Pedro Joaquin and Teodora
Garcia, with original certificate of Title No. 161, the said title was
cancelled and transfer certificate No. 20 was issued to Jose Cojuangco, Sr. on May 21, 1913, by virtue of a deed of sale
in his favor. There may be an issue of
fact here which ordinarily would require a trial on the merits, namely, whether the
transaction was a sale or a mortgage.
But plaintiff, pursuing his theory of the case, alleges in the complaint
that he offered to redeem the mortgage in 1917 but that defendants refused the
offer on the ground that the lands had been sold to them. From that time, at least, defendants’
possession was adverse, and after 10 years became a dominical title by acquisitive
prescription. The present action,
therefore, was correctly dismissed by the court below.
The order appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement
as to costs.
Reyes, JBL, Bengzon, JP, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., and Dizon, J., did not take part.