VICTOR DE LOS REYES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PIO PASTORFIDE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

De los Reyes versus Pastorfide

The Case

This is an action for recovery of possession, or what the old books call an accion reivindicatoria, brought by Victor de los Reyes, the registered owner of a parcel of land in Lamitan, Basilan, against Pio Pastorfide, who had been occupying a portion of that land since August 1945. De los Reyes asked the Court of First Instance of Basilan to order Pastorfide to vacate, to pay rentals for the use of the land, to return the value of coconuts he had taken, and to pay attorney's fees. Pastorfide answered that he owned the land, having bought it from the government, and that he had possessed it openly and continuously as owner since 1927. The case matters because it settles a clean rule on the Torrens system: once land is brought under a certificate of title, it is private property, it is withdrawn from the control of the Director of Lands, and it can no longer be the subject of a second public-land grant, nor can it be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed on August 15, 1950, with the Court of First Instance of Basilan. After trial, on October 10, 1957, that court rendered judgment for the plaintiff. It found that the portion in question was covered by a Torrens title in the plaintiff's name, and it ordered the defendant to vacate, to pay back rentals of 1,470 pesos for the period from August 1945 to October 1957, to pay a monthly rental of 10 pesos until he vacates, to reimburse 220 pesos spent for the re-survey of the property, and to pay 300 pesos in attorney's fees, plus costs. The defendant appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in June 1961.

Facts

The land occupied by Pastorfide is a portion of Lot Number 52, originally covered by an original certificate of title issued in the name of Mora Amsia under a homestead patent granted to her in 1922. That title is now held by Victor de los Reyes as successor in interest of the original patentee.

Notwithstanding that earlier grant, the Bureau of Lands in 1935 acted on Pastorfide's sales application and, after public bidding, sold the same lot to him, and he paid the required charges. The Director of Lands later ordered that sales application cancelled precisely because the lot lay within the private property of the plaintiff.

Pastorfide had occupied the land since 1927, claiming to have bought it from a certain Imam Jahal, and he claimed to have introduced improvements, including sixty fruit-bearing coconut trees. The trial court, however, found no satisfactory proof of these improvements, noting that his tax declaration carried only a nominal assessment and showed neither the coconut trees nor the ricefield he claimed. The trial court also awarded the re-survey fee and attorney's fees, and these two items became the subject of the appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not the sale of the lot to Pastorfide by the Bureau of Lands in 1935 conferred on him any right of ownership over the property.
• Whether or not Pastorfide's alleged adverse and continuous occupation of the land since 1927 could be the basis of a claim of ownership.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in awarding back rentals for the occupancy and use of the land.
• Whether or not Pastorfide is entitled to retain possession until reimbursed for the improvements he claims to have introduced.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in ordering Pastorfide to pay the re-survey fee and attorney's fees.

Applicable Provisions

Section 46 of Act Number 496, the Land Registration Act, as amended, provides:

Sec. 46. Every person receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered land who takes a certificate of title for value in good faith shall hold the same free of all encumbrances except those noted on said certificate, and any of the following encumbrances which may be subsisting, namely: First. Liens, claims, or rights arising or existing under the laws or Constitution of the United States or of the Philippine Islands which the statutes of the Philippine Islands cannot require to appear of record in the registry. Second. Taxes, whether or not the same have been assessed or levied, and whether or not the same have been paid, and any assessment or levy made subsequent to the last day of the year for which the last assessment or levy was made. Third. Any public highway, way, private way, or any irrigation canal or lateral thereof, established or constructed by the Government or any political subdivision thereof, or by any person or persons with the consent of the Government or political subdivision concerned. Fourth. Any lease or other agreement, whether verbal or written, whereby the owner of registered land has agreed to convey or transfer the same or any interest therein to another, if the existence of such lease or agreement is noted on the certificate of title. Fifth. Any judgment, order, or decree of any court of record of the Philippine Islands or of the United States, or of any state or territory thereof, or of any other court of competent jurisdiction, if the same is noted on the certificate of title. Sixth. Any lien or right of any kind or nature whatsoever, whether created by contract or by operation of law, if the same is noted on the certificate of title. Seventh. Any right or interest of any person in or to the land, whether the same be a lien, claim, or encumbrance, if the same is noted on the certificate of title. Eighth. Any right or interest of any person in or to the land, whether the same be a lien, claim, or encumbrance, if the same is noted on the certificate of title.

The Court cites this provision for the rule that registered land cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession, which disposes of Pastorfide's claim of ownership by long occupation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the 1935 award to Pastorfide conferred no right. The property had already been adjudicated to a patentee who obtained a certificate of title, and so it had already become private property, was released from the control and supervision of the Director of Lands, and could no longer be the subject of another adjudication. The Court noted that the Director of Lands himself had cancelled Pastorfide's sales application for being within the private property of the plaintiff.

On the second issue, the Court held that adverse and continuous occupation could not be the basis of ownership. The land having been brought under the operation of the Torrens system, the same cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession, as Section 46 of Act Number 496, as amended, provides.

On the third issue, the Court held that since the plaintiff had been deprived of the use of the land, the trial court did not err in awarding a reasonable rent for its occupancy and utilization.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the claim of improvements involved a question of fact, and the Court could not go over the evidence to verify it. The trial judge had concluded that the defendant made no improvement and that the coconuts were the plaintiff's, and the Court upheld that conclusion.

On the fifth issue, the Court agreed with the appellant. The re-survey was contracted by the plaintiff to determine the exact boundaries of his own property, and it was unfair to charge that expenditure, which was not even included in the complaint, to another. As for attorney's fees, these cannot be awarded simply because the plaintiff established his ownership. There being no proof to the contrary, it may be presumed that the appellant's refusal to accede to the demand was motivated by an honest conviction that he had a valid cause under the law.

Doctrine

First, once land is adjudicated to a patentee who obtains a certificate of title, it becomes private property, is released from the control and supervision of the Director of Lands, and can no longer be the subject of another public-land adjudication. A later sale by the Bureau of Lands of the same lot confers no right on the buyer.

Second, land brought under the Torrens system cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession, consistent with Section 46 of Act Number 496, as amended. Long occupation, however open and continuous, does not ripen into ownership against a registered title.

Third, a registered owner deprived of the use of his land is entitled to reasonable rentals for its occupancy and utilization.

Fourth, attorney's fees are not awarded merely because a party established his ownership in litigation; absent proof of bad faith, a defendant's refusal to accede to a demand may be presumed to rest on an honest belief in the validity of his cause.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, with the modifications that the award of the 220-peso re-survey fee and the 300-peso attorney's fees were eliminated, without costs. The plaintiff won on the land and the rentals, but lost on the two contested money items.

Remember This

Memorize this line: land covered by a Torrens title is private property, beyond the control of the Director of Lands, and cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Examiners use this case to test the indefeasibility of a certificate of title against a later public-land grant, and to test when attorney's fees may be awarded.