MIGUELA MIRANDA, FELICIDAD DE LA ROSA AND LUZ DE LUBIO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JUSTA ALORA RANSUYO, (DEC.) SUB­STITUTED BY HER CHILDREN, NAMELY:  REBECCA RANSUY…

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court
of Appeals’ decision dated February 7, 1977 in CA-G.R. No. L-58560-R, entitled
“Justa Alora Ransuyo, et al. vs. Pedro de la Cruz, et al.,” affirming
in toto the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Laguna in an action for
reconveyance, annulment and damages, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“IN VIEW OF
THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS,
judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiffs against the defendants and the
deed of sale executed by Norberto Almoro on June 10, 1917 conveying the one-third
(1/3) northern portion of Lot No. 581 of the Biñan Estate in favor of Melecio
Legasto as well as the deed of sale executed by Melecio Legasto in favor of spouses Gabriel
Alora and Tarcila Alzona on April 28, 1930 conveying and transferring the same portion of Lot No.
581 of the Biñan Estate are declared valid for having been legally made. The deed of donation executed by Roberto
Almoro on January 19, 1948 transferring by way of donation the entire parcel of
Lot No. 581 of the Biñan Estate to the defendants is
declared void only with respect to the one-third (1/3) northern portion of Lot
No. 581, which is adjudged in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants Miguela Miranda, Felicidad
dela Rosa and Luz de Lubio except Pedro de la Cruz are ordered to reconvey to
the plaintiffs therein, as heirs and successors-in-interest of the deceased
Gabriel Alora and Tarcilla Alzona, the one-third (1/3) northern portion or
205.66 square meters of Lot No. 581 of the Biñan Estate. The Register of Deeds of the Province of
Laguna is directed, upon payment of the prescribed legal fees, to cancel
Transfer Certificate[s] of Title Nos. T-21306, T-21307, T-21308 and T-21309.
Defendants are jointly and severally ordered to pay the plaintiffs the sum of
P500.00 as attorney’s fees.

With  costs
against the defendants.” (pp. 106-107,
Record on Appeal.)

The private respondents, as plaintiffs in the Court of First
Instance of Laguna, alleged in their complaint:

“That they are the
children and legal heirs of the deceased spouses Gabriel Alora and Tarcila
Alzona of Biñan, Laguna, who during their lifetime purchased from one Melecio
Legasto the disputed 1/3 portion of Lot 581 consisting of 205.66 sq. meters,
evidenced by an ancient
document dated April 28, 1930 (Exh. A); that this Melecio Legasto, bought the
same 1/3 portion of said Lot 581, from the original owner, Roberto Almoro,
predecessor-in-interest of herein defendants, except Pedro de la Cruz, on June 10, 1917, evidenced
by public instrument (Exh. B); that immediately after the sale to their father
Gabriel Alora in 1930, the latter, declared the said disputed 1/3 portion of
Lot 581 in his own name, under Tax Declaration No. 9386 (Exh. C), which said
Gabriel Alora executed on July 11, 1931, and paid its corresponding land
taxes, as shown by Exhibit E; that
Gabriel Alora likewise fenced
the disputed land in question; built a small resthouse; they also helped
Gabriel Alora plant vegetables and other plants over the questioned premises;
that it was only in 1961 when they came to know that the
entire Lot 581, which included the disputed 1/3 portion therein was donated by
Roberto Almoro in favor of his protegees and adopted daughters, Roberto Almoro
and his wife being childless, sometime in January, 1948, and on August 5, 1948
also donated the disputed 1/3 part thereon in favor of the defendant Pedro de
la Cruz; that despite demands to reconvey the questioned premises herein defendants, except Pedro de la
Cruz, still refuses to do so hence the present recovery suit.” (pp.
1-2. CA Decision on pp. 30-31, Rollo.)

Pedro de la Cruz executed on May 31, 1961 a “Salaysay”
renouncing all his rights over any portion of Lot 581. The defendants subsequently had the entire
property subdivided, then caused the registration of the subdivided lots in
their respective names and the issuance of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
T­-21306, T-21307, T-21308 and T-21309 of the Laguna Registry of Deeds on
September 20, 1961.

In their answer, the defendants alleged that the plaintiffs’
cause of action had already
prescribed, and that the deeds of sale
(Exhibits A and B) as well as the certifications issued by the Acting
Register of Deeds (Exhibits L, M and
N) attesting that said deeds are copies of the originals long filed in his
office, are fake and falsified.

After trial, the lower court rendered the assailed judgment on
August 5, 1975. The defendants appealed
to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto. It held that
prescription had not set in because the plaintiffs discovered in 1968 that the
defendants (herein petitioners) had registered the entire Lot 581 in 1961, and
they filed their complaint for reconveyance in 1968 also. Therefore, the ten-year prescriptive period
had not yet elapsed.

It upheld the authenticity and due execution of the deed of sale
for these were ancient and genuine documents written on paper which had turned
yellow with age but remained unblemished by alterations or circumstances of
suspicion. The documentary stamps
appended thereto were those of that era, still bearing the name
“Philippine Islands.” Moreover, the plaintiffs had tax
declarations: (1) Tax Declaration No.
9386 dated July 11, 1931 (Exh. C), together with Tax Receipt (Exh. D); and (2)
Tax Declaration No. 1776 (Exhibit E-1) for 1948, also in Gabriel Alora’s name. These tax declarations cancelled in part Roberto Almoro’s
Tax Declaration No. 6824 for Lot 581. Moreover, they have been in peaceful, open, and continuous possession of
the one-third portion. The petitioners’
attempt to assail these findings of the CA must fail for they are factual. It is a cardinal rule that in petitions for
review under Rule 45 only legal issues may be raised.

Petitioners’ reliance on the registration of the entire Lot 581
in 1961 to secure their ownership over the disputed portion is misplaced. The deed of donation (Exh. F) which Almoro
made in favor of the petitioners, was void with respect to the one-third
portion which he had already sold. The
petitioners acquired only the portion, which still belonged to their
donor-benefactor. The portion which he
no longer owned but conveyed to the petitioners was impressed with a trust in
favor of the true owners, the private respondents (Amerol, et al. vs.
Bagumbaran, 154 SCRA 396).

While land registration is a proceeding in rem and
binds the whole world (Moscozo vs. CA, 128 SCRA 70), the simple possession of a
certificate of title under the Torrens system does not necessarily make the
holder a true owner of all the property described therein. If a person obtains a title under the
Torrens system, which includes by mistake or oversight land which can no longer
be registered under the system, he does not, by virtue of said certificate
alone, become the owner of the lands illegally included (Coronel vs. IAC, 155
SCRA 270, citing Ledesma vs. Municipality of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 769, 773;
Caragay-Layno vs. CA, 133 SCRA 718).

“Registration does not vest title. It is not a mode of acquiring property. It does not give the holder any better
right than what he actually has, especially if the registration was done in bad
faith. The effect is that it is
as if no registration was made at all.

“x x x Settled is the rule that a donor cannot lawfully
convey what is not his property.” (De Guzman vs. CA, 156 SCRA 701.)

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of
the Court of Appeals, the petition for review is denied with costs against the
petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.