CARLOS MAÑACOP, JR., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. FAUSTINO CANSINO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Action to recover possession of a land and damages. Defendant claimed
ownership, as well as the right to possess the land, and secured
judgment declaring that the same belongs to him, as well as nullifying
and cancelling plaintiff’s certificate of title thereto. Hence, this
appeal by the plaintiff, who raises merely questions of law.

The property in dispute is a parcel of land situated in sitio Mapaltoc,
barrio of Paytan, municipality of Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija. It was
originally covered by Homestead Patent No. 235, in the name of Sabina
Tomas, widow of Leocadio Dagdag, and dated October 15, 1914, pursuant
to which Original Certificate of Title No. 144 of the office of the
Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, in favor of Sabina Tomas, was issued
on November 15, 1914. Said land was subsequently designated as Lots
Nos. 342 and 387 of the cadastral survey of the municipality of Cuyapo
(Exhibits 15 and 15-A). On May 20, 1920, and October 30, 1922, Sabina
Tomas sold two (2) portions of the land to Mr. and Mrs. Bartolome
Ancheta. On June 1, 1922 and May 29, 1923, she conveyed other two (2)
portions of the same property to Mr. and Mrs. Faustino Cansino. The
portions thus sold to the Anchetas and Cansinos having been claimed by
them in the corresponding cadastral proceedings, judgments were, in due
course, rendered therein, adjudicating Lot No. 342 to Mr. and Mrs.
Bartolome Ancheta and Lot No. 387 to Mr. and Mrs. Faustino Cansino.
Thereafter, Original Certificate of Title No. 4742 covering Lot No. 387
was issued to Mr. and Mrs. Cansino on September 22, 1925, whereas Mr.
and Mrs. Ancheta obtained on August 21,1925, Original Certificate of
Title No. 3885, covering Lot No. 342. On March 28, 1937, the Anchetas
sold Lot No. 342 to the Cansinos, who secured Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 13591, dated July 11, 1938, in their name, upon cancellation
of said Original Certificate of Title No. 3885.

Upon the
other hand, it appears that Original Certificate of Title No. 144 had
been cancelled and a new one—Transfer Certificate of Title No. 99, in
the name of Sabina Tomas—was issued, in lieu thereof, on September 18,
1916. Sabina Tomas died on June 15, 1952, and her children, Juliana and
Clodualdo, both surnamed Dagdag, applied on September 27, 1953 for
another duplicate of said Transfer Certificate of Title No. 99, upon
the ground that the owner’s duplicate thereof could not be located. The
petition having been granted by an order dated November 27, 1953, a
second owner’s duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 99 was
issued, by the register of deeds of Nueva Ecija, in the name of Sabina
Tomas on November 27, 1953. Pursuant to a deed of extrajudicial
partition, executed by Juliana and Clodualdo Dagdag, adjudicating the
property to themselves, said Transfer Certificate of Title No. 99 was
cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-14970 was issued, in
lieu thereof, on December 23, 1953, in their name, subject to the
provisions of section 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. Less than two
(2) years later, or on November 28, 1955, Juliana and Clodualdo Dagdag
sold the land to Benito Bringas, who secured Transfer Certificate of
Title No. NT-18797, dated November 29, 1955, in his name, upon
cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-14970. On July 2,
1956, Benito Bringas, in turn, assigned the land to plaintiff Carlos
Mañacop, Jr., in whose favor Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-20508
was issued, on July 2, 1956, upon cancellation of Transfer Certificate
of Title No. NT-18797.

Soon later, or on March 5, 1957,
plaintiff, Carlos Mañacop, Jr. instituted this action against defendant
Faustino Cansino. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that he owns the
land in dispute the same being covered by said Transfer Certificate of
Title No. NT-20508 in his name and that defendant is in possession of
said land without any authority therefor and has refused to vacate it
despite repeated demands by the plaintiff, who accordingly prayed that
judgment be rendered ordering the defendant to surrender the possession
of the land, to deliver the net harvest for the agricultural year
1956-1957 or its equivalent in money, and to pay attorney’s fees.

Defendant filed an answer and a supplemental answer alleging that the
land in dispute belongs to him, he and his predecessor in interest
having acquired it by purchase from its original owner, Sabina Tomas,
whose right thereto was evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
99; that, in the cadastral proceedings aforementioned, said land was
adjudicated partly to him and partly to the Anchetas, who later sold
their portion to him; and that he and his predecessor in interest have
been in possession of said land continuously, peacefully and
exclusively for over thirty (30) years, and praying that the complaint
be dismissed and that plaintiff be sentenced to pay attorney’s fees and
consequential damages.

After due hearing, the lower court
declared that defendants Cansino and Bartolome Ancheta had been in
possession of the portions of the disputed land respectively purchased
by them from Sabina Tomas from the dates of their transactions with her
(May 20, 1920, June 1 and October 30, 1922 and May 29, 1923); that,
even if a land once registered—although it be by virtue of
administrative proceedings—cannot again be registered, plaintiff’s
title, derived from the original registration, is not superior to
defendant’s title, under the subsequent registration, for when
plaintiff purchased the land from Benito Bringas, who got it from the
children of Sabina Tomas, the title to the land was subject to the
provisions of Rule 74, section 4, of the Rules of Court; that, although
the latter fixes a period of two (2) years for the filing of claims of
heirs or other persons who had been unduly deprived of their lawful
participation therein, in consequence of the summary settlement of the
estate of a deceased person, said period does not apply when the
settlement has been effected extra-judicially, in which case the
ordinary period of limitations applies; that plaintiff thus took the
land with notice of the fact that his title was subject to the claims
of heirs or other persons who had been unduly deprived of their lawful
participation in the property in dispute; that plaintiff may not
invoke, therefore, the rights of a purchaser in good faith; that
defendant’s title is, therefore, better than that of the plaintiff; and
that the latter’s Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-20508 should,
accordingly, be nullified and cancelled.

Plaintiff assails
the opinion of the lower court—to the effect that heirs and other
persons who may have been unduly deprived of their lawful participation
in the estate of a deceased person, in consequence of a summary
settlement effected pursuant to the provisions of Rule 74 of the Rules
of Court, are not subject to the two-year period fixed in section 4 of
said Rule 74, and may file their respective claims within the ordinary
period of limitation of action, when the settlement has been made
extrajudicially, as in the case at bar—upon the ground that the
language of said section 4 is unqualified and that, accordingly, the
distinction sought to be made between judicial settlements and those
effected extrajudicially can not be justified.

It is,
however, unnecessary for us to pass upon this question, for it appears
that, about nine (9) months before buying the land in litigation, or in
November 1955, plaintiff went to said land and it is not disputed that
the same was—and for many years prior thereto, had been— in the
possession of defendant herein, openly, publicly, peacefully,
continuously and adversely to the whole world, so that plaintiff must
have then learned of such possession. In fact, plaintiff admitted that
one Abon told him that he could not possibly cultivate the land,
because defendant was cultivating it, and that he (plaintiff),
accordingly, relayed the information to Benito Bringas, who did not
deny its accuracy and merely replied that he would help him (plaintiff)
locate the defendant. Being thus aware of sufficient facts to induce a
reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title to the
property in litigation, plaintiff can not legally claim the rights of a
purchaser in good faith. Indeed, by appealing directly to this Court,
which would have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal if questions
of fact were raised therein, plaintiff has waived the right to question
the finding of His Honor, the trial Judge, to the effect that he is not
such purchaser in good faith.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against plaintiff-appellant. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, Acting C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.