ROMULO B. GALE, LILIOSA D. GALE, ROLITO D. GALE AND RITCHE D. GALE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. SPS. JULIUS AND SERSIE MACASAET, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF DAVAO CITY, DEFENDAN…
SINGH, J.:[*]
Factual Antecedents
Subject of the present controversy is a parcel of land known as Lot No. 9183-D,[2] Csd-11-010104-D (subject lot) situated at Malvar Street, San Pedro Extension, Davao City, consisting of 601 square meters (sq. m.) covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-13010.[3]
On September 23, 1987, appellee Julius Macasaet (Macasaet) filed an Application for Free Patent[4] over the subject lot before the Bureau of Lands of Davao City, docketed as FPA (XL-14) 2254. Thereafter, a Notice of Application for Free Patent[5] was issued by said Office directing that all adverse claims to the subject lot must be filed on or before November 8, 1987. Copies of such notice were then posted in the prescribed places. On February 3, 1989, OCT No. P-13010 was issued to appellee Macasaet pursuant to Free Patent No. (XI-14)6262.[6]
Nineteen (19) years later, or on June 25, 2008, herein appellants Romulo, Liliosa, Rolito and Ritche, all surnamed Gale (the Gales), filed with the RTC a complaint[7] for Annulment of Title of Real Property, Reconveyance and Damages with prayer for Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction against herein appellee Macasaet and his wife Sersie Macasaet. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 32,408-08 and impleaded as nominal defendant therein was the Register of Deeds of Davao City.
In their complaint, Romulo and Liliosa Gale claimed that since 1971 up to the present they had been in actual, open, continuous, exclusive, notorious, adverse and belligerent possession and occupation of the subject lot. They planted it with trees and built structures thereon like their garage and many other improvements. Their children (Rolito and Ritche) spent their childhood cultivating said land by helping them plant crops and raise game fowl thereat. In support of their claims, the Gales submitted a Joint Affidavit of two disinterested persons.[8]
However, allegedly unknown to them (the Gales), appellee Macasaet applied for a free patent over the subject lot, misrepresenting in his application that said land was first cultivated by his father (Simeon B. Macasaet) on August 28, 1920 and that he had been cultivating it since June 8, 1960. The Gales also alleged that appellee Macasaet misled the public by indicating San Pedro Extension as the location of the subject lot when it is actually situated in Malvar Street. They further alleged that after appellee Macasaet was granted OCT No. P-13010, he fenced the said land thereby disturbing their peaceful occupation thereof and impeding their access from their house.
Consequently, the Gales sought the annulment and/or cancellation of OCT No. P-13010 alleging that it is null and void ab initio because appellee Macasaet obtained it through fraud and misrepresentation in his free patent application, which he committed by declaring that he had been in actual occupation and possession of the subject lot and that it had no other claimant, even though he was fully aware that the Gales occupied, cultivated, possessed and claim said land as their own. The Gales thus contended that since title to the subject lot was fraudulently obtained by appellee Macasaet, the law considers him a mere trustee of such property, holding it for the benefit of its real owners, i.e., the Gales. Aside from praying for the nullification and/or cancellation of OCT No. P-13010, the Gales alternatively prayed for the reconveyance of the subject lot to them.
Answering,[9] the Macasaets denied that the Gales had been in possession of and had actually occupied the subject lot since 1971. Appellee Macasaet maintained that it was his father (Simeon Macasaet) who was in actual possession and occupation of a then undivided parcel of land located in San Pedro Extension, Davao City since August 28, 1920, which included the subject lot. It was also his father who first entered, cultivated and introduced improvements thereon. Upon Simeon Macasaet’s death, appellee Macasaet and his mother (Julia Macasaet) continued cultivating the whole property. When the Mindanao School of Midwifery was established on September 1, 1958,[10] its building was constructed on the subject lot (then owned by his mother) as she was an incorporator and then the President of said school. She was the one who ordered the fencing of the whole property, providing only means of ingress and egress to the subject lot for the students, faculty members and staff.
Macasaet denied employing fraud and false representation in his free patent application. He neither deliberately concealed his free patent application from the Gales nor misled the public by indicating therein San Pedro Extension as the location of the subject lot.
As special affirmative defense, Macasaet posited that assuming for the sake of argument that the Gales were in possession of the subject lot, they are already barred by the statute of limitations from instituting any claim over it because they failed to file any adverse claim or opposition to his free patent application within the period prescribed by the Bureau of Lands. Also, he asserted that his title to the subject lot had long become indefeasible, irrevocable and incontrovertible after the expiration of one year from its issuance on February 3, 1989, pursuant to Section 38 of Act No. 496 or the Land Registration Act; hence, it can no longer be annulled or nullified.
On August 28, 2008, Macasaet filed a motion[11] to set his affirmative defense of prescription for hearing, which the Gales opposed alleging that his affirmative defense of prescription was frivolous and baseless.[12] The RTC directed the parties to file their respective memoranda vis-à-vis the affirmative defense of prescription.[13]
The RTC Ruling
On August 26, 2009, the RTC dismissed the case in this wise:
“x x x x x x
Defendant Macasaet’s special and affirmative defense is sufficiently supported by laws and jurisprudence that plaintiffs’ (the Gales) action for annulment of title of real property and reconveyance are barred by the statute of limitations. x x x.
x x x. Plaintiffs’ claim that prescription does not run against them considering that they were in actual, open, continuous, exclusive and adverse possession of the subject land is devoid of merit. This claim applies only to reinvidicatory action.
Certificates of title that are genuine and valid on their face are incontrovertible, indefeasible and conclusive against the whole world. (citation omitted)
x x x x x x
Perfunctorily, plaintiffs’ action for annulment of title of real property and reconveyance has already been barred by statute of limitations as provided under Section 38 of Act No. 496 of (sic) the Land Registration Act, to wit:
“X x x… Upon the expiration of said term of one year, every decree or certificate of title issued in accordance with this section shall be incontrovertible. X x x x x…”
The certificate of title registered in the name of Julius Macasaet which was issued on February 3, 1989 had long become indefeasible, irrevocable and incontrovertible after the expiration of one (1) year from issuance thereof. Plaintiffs’ claim was filed only after the lapse of more than eighteen years.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and on the ground that plaintiff’s action had already prescribed, this instant case is hereby ordered DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.” (Italics Ours)
The Gales moved for the reconsideration[14] of the foregoing Order, which appellee Macasaet opposed, but the RTC denied said motion on April 5, 2010.[15]
The Issues
The present appeal raises the following issues:
“I. The trial court erred in ruling that an action for reconveyance is not a reinvidicatory action.
II. The trial court erred in ruling that the action for reconveyance has already prescribed.
III. The trial court erred in its factual finding that appellants’ occupation over the subject property was after the issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. P-13010.”[16]
Appellants’ Position
The Gales maintain that since they have been in actual, open, continuous, exclusive, notorious, adverse and belligerent possession and occupation of the subject lot since 1971 up to the present, they already acquired ownership of the same through acquisitive prescription in 1981. They allege that Macasaet had used fraud and misrepresentation in his application for free patent because he managed to obtain title to the subject lot despite their actual occupation thereof. Alternatively, they contend that while Macasaet’s title could no longer be annulled due to the indefeasibility of the Torrens title after one year following its issuance, he may still be compelled to reconvey the subject lot to them, as they are its true owners. Lastly, they aver that an action for reconveyance is a reinvidicatory action, the period of prescription of which would not run against them because they are in possession of the subject lot.
Appellee’s Position
Appellee Macasaet, for his part, asserts that the Gales’ action to annul his certificate of title and to reconvey the subject lot to them warrants dismissal as said causes of action are already barred by the statute of limitations, prescription and laches, owing to the fact that his certificate of title is already indefeasible, incontrovertible and irrevocable, and considering that it took the Gales nineteen (19) years from the registration of the subject lot in Julius Macasaet’s name to institute court action.
Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
From the issues raised vis-à-vis the parties’ respective arguments, the basic question to resolve here is whether the RTC erred in dismissing the Gales’ action for reconveyance on ground of prescription.
The Court affirms the RTC.
The remedy of the landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another’s name is, after one year from the date of the decree, not to set aside the decree, but, respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages.[17] Consequently, a private individual may bring an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land even if the title thereof was issued through a free patent since such action does not aim or purport to re-open the registration proceeding and set aside the decree of registration, but only to show that the person who secured the registration of the questioned property is not the real owner thereof.[18] In essence, an action for reconveyance respects the incontrovertibility of the decree of registration but seeks the transfer of the property to its rightful and legal owner on the ground of its having been fraudulently or mistakenly registered in another person’s name.[19]
The Gales, claiming to be the real owners, seek the reconveyance of the subject lot from Macasaet, who allegedly fraudulently obtained title thereto. Under Article 1456 of the New Civil Code, “If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.” Pursuant thereto, assuming there was fraud, an implied trust was legally created between Macasaet and the Gales.
In Iglesia Filipina Independente v. Taeza,[20] the Supreme Court reiterated that:
“An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe in ten years and not otherwise. Undoubtedly, it is now well-settled that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property.
It has also been ruled that the ten-year prescriptive period begins to run from the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property, x x x.” (Italics Ours)
In the case at bar, OCT No. P-13010 covering the subject lot was issued to Macasaet on February 3, 1989, while the complaint for annulment of title of real property, reconveyance and damages was filed by the Gales in court only on June 25, 2008. From the time the Torrens title over the subject lot was issued to Macasaet until the date of filing of the action for reconveyance in court, nineteen (19) years have elapsed. Indubitably, the Gales’ action for the reconveyance of the subject lot was filed way beyond the prescriptive period.
In sum, this Court finds that no reversible error was committed by the RTC in rendering the assailed Order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the Order dated August 26, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 11th Judicial Region, Branch 11 of Davao City in Civil Case No. 32,408-08 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Borja, J. Ch., and Badelles, JJ., concur.
[*] This case was assigned to the Ponente by re-raffle only on July 9, 2014.
[1] Rollo, pp. 41-46; Records, pp. 129-134.
[2] Identical to Lot 10208, Cad. 102 [Davao Cadastre].
[3] Records, p. 17.
[4] Id. at p. 16.
[5] Id. at p. 15.
[6] Supra at note 3.
[7] Id. at pp. 2-12.
[8] Id. at p. 14.
[9] Id. at pp. 43-63.
[10] Id. at p. 64.
[11] Id. at pp. 86-88.
[12] Id. at pp. 89-92.
[13] Id. at p. 93.
[14] Id. at pp. 135-141.
[15] Id. at pp. 160-162.
[16] Rollo, p. 15.
[17] Philippine National Bank v. Jumamoy, G.R. No. 169901, August 3, 2011.
[18] Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr., G.R. No. 189647, February 06, 2012.
[19] Heirs of Reterta v. Spouses Mores, G.R. No. 159941, August 17, 2011.
[20] G.R. No. 179597, February 3, 2014 citing Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Aying, 497 Phil. 788, 799-800 (2005).