ESCOLASTICO BUSTARGA AND FORTUNATA BUSTARGA NOTORIO, PETITIONERS, VS. FELICIANO NAVO II AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

May the possessor en concepto de dueño of a parcel of land,
after the lapse of more than ten years from the fraudulent issuance to
another person of a free patent and title for that land, ask the
patentee to reconvey the land? This question arises under the following
facts:

Feliciano Navo II or Feliciano P. Navo bought in 1948 and 1949 certain
adjoining parcels of land located in Sitio Sabang, Barrio San Roque,
Bula, Camarines Sur, as tabulated below:

Date of Purchase	Sellers	Price	Area Purchased and Exhibit
5-19-48	Luis Clemenia and Teodorica Villaverde	P160	5,000 square meters, Exh. B and D.
6-30-48	Hermenegildo, Marciana and Leodegaria Guinoo	160	10,000 square meters, Exh. C.
6-19-48	Modesta, Luis and Ines Clemenia	480	15,000 square meters, Exh. E.
8-7-48	Juan Clemenia	160	10,000 square meters, Exh. F.
9-1-49	Felixberta Adie	350	10,000 square meters, Exh. A.
	Total Area purchased	50,000 square meters.

All these parcels of land became Lot 2636 of the Bula cadastre with
an area of 47,402 square meters (Exh. 1; 2-3, Record on Appeal). Navo
has always been in possession of the five parcels of land. He was an
heir of Alejandro Navo, the brother of Feliciana Navo, who was the mother of Escolastico Bustarga and Fortunata Bustarga Notorio. Navo and the Bustargas are first cousins.

On February 4, 1955, the Heirs of Feliciana Navo, represented by her
son, Escolastico, filed an application for free patent for Lot 2636. On
the false assumption that the said heirs (Escolastico and Fortunata)
were in actual possession of Lot 2636, a free patent and a Torrens
title, OCT No. 2245, dated May 12, 1955, were issued to the “Heirs of
Feliciana Navo” (3, Record on Appeal; p. 58, Rollo). Exhibits K to K-5,
the free patent application, were not elevated to the Court of Appeals
by the lower court (18-19, Record on Appeal).

Then, on February 17, 1956, by virtue of an extra-judicial partition,
Escolastico and Fortunata succeeded in obtaining TCT No. 1570 for Lot
2636 and for an adjacent lot, identified as Lot 1404 with an area of 28,477 square meters
(14-16, Record on Appeal). One-half of Lot 1404 was already sold by
Escolastico to Navo (Exh. J and 5). Exhibits L and M, the 1939 decision
of the lower court in the prewar case, Civil Case No. 6264 regarding
the land, which became Lot 1404, and the 1941 decision of the Court of
Appeals affirming it, were likewise not elevated to the Court of Appeals
by the lower court. The failure to elevate the said exhibits is
censurable.

All these proceedings were not known to Feliciano Navo II. The Court of
Appeals found that inasmuch as the Bustargas “were never in possession”
of Lot 2636, “the patent was obtained under false pretenses“.

Navo filed his action for reconveyance against the Bustargas on July 7,
1966 or more than ten years after the patent for Lot 2636 was issued to
the Bustargas. The parties agreed during the pre-trial that should the
commissioner appointed by the court find that TCT No. 1570 includes any
parcel of land, in addition to Lot 1404, the subject-matter of the 1939
decision of the trial court, already mentioned, then that additional
parcel of land should be reconveyed to Feliciano Navo II after paying a
reasonable amount fixed by the court (11, Record on Appeal).

The geodetic engineer commissioned by the trial court to relocate Lots
1404 and 2636 reported that TCT No. 1570 embraced Lot 1404, which was
the subject-matter of the prewar case, as indicated in his sketch, and
which was adjudicated to Feliciana Navo, mother of the Bustargas. The
said title also included Lot 2636, which was not involved in the prewar
case and which has been occupied by Feliciano Navo II. As already
stated, he bought the same from several persons (13-17, Record on
Appeal).

Hence, the trial court in its decision ordered the Bustargas to reconvey
Lot 2636 to Navo upon payment of P500, the amount incurred in procuring
the title. The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.

We hold that the reconveyance is proper notwithstanding that the action
was filed after the lapse of more than ten years from the issuance of
the patent and title. The Bustargas had agreed during the pre-trial to
the reconveyance if it was found as a fact that Lot 2636 was not
adjudicated to them in the prewar case. That was tantamount to a waiver
of the defense of prescription.

Not only that. The reconveyance is just and proper in order to
terminate the intolerable anomaly that the patentees should have a
Torrens title for the land which they and their predecessors never
possessed and which has been possessed by Navo in the concept of owner.
(As to cancellation of patent at the instance of the Director of Lands,
see sec. 91 of the Public Land Law; Director of Lands vs. Abanilla,
L-26324, August 31, 1983, 124 SCRA 358.)

He truthfully charged that through deceit, misrepresentation and
clandestine machinations during the processing of the free patent
application, Escolastico Bustarga succeeded in misleading the Bureau of
Lands (3, Record on Appeal). It is relevant to mention that Escolastico
also misled Judge Palacio into approving a compromise agreement in
Civil Case No. 1648 which was not signed by some parties and was signed
by another party due to the fraud perpetrated by Escolastico (Exh. H).

The controlling ruling is found in Vital vs. Anore, 90 Phil. 955, where it was held:

“Limitation of action; Torrens title on the patent; Patentee
has never been in possession; Ownership belongs to possessor;
Reconveyance lies. – A Torrens title issued upon a free patent may
not be cancelled after the lapse of ten years from the date of its
registration because the statute of limitations bars such cancellation.

“But if the registered owner, be he the patentee or his
successor-in-interest to whom the free patent was transferred or
conveyed, knew that the parcel of land described in the patent and in
the Torrens title belonged to another who together with his
predecessors-in-interest were never in possession thereof, then the statute barring an action to cancel a Torrens title issued upon a free patent does not apply x x x.

“(T)he true owner may bring an action to have the ownership or
title to the land judicially settled and the Court in the exercise of
its equity jurisdiction, without ordering the cancellation of
the Torrens title issued upon the patent, may direct the defendant, the
registered owner, to reconvey the parcel of land to the plaintiff who
has been found to be the true owner thereof.”

The Vital case involved a Torrens title issued on January 20,
1934 to Francisco Anore in pursuance of a homestead patent transferred
to him. The title and patent were sought to be annulled by the actual
possessor of the land, Montano Vital, in an action which he filed on
December 13, 1945 or after more than eleven years. It was held that
Vital had a cause of action for reconveyance.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Treble costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

De Castro, J., no part.