HEIRS OF JOSE T. CALO, NAMELY: GILDA CALO-SANCHEZ, NEMIA CALO-TEAÑO AND WILFREDO C. PABIA, PETITIONERS, VS. NONA CALO AND THE HEIRS OF ROMUALDA CALO, NAMELY: LUCINDA LAMIGO, ANI…

Heirs of Jose T. Calo versus Nona Calo

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the heirs of Jose T. Calo against Nona Calo and the heirs of Romualda Calo. The dispute began as a petition for reconstitution of a lost original certificate of title over a parcel of land in the Butuan Cadastre, which the trial court later allowed to be converted into an action for partition among the various claimants. The case matters because it shows how a Torrens title that has stood for more than sixty years becomes indefeasible, and how a claimant who cannot trace his rights to the registered owners is barred from annotating any adverse claim on the reconstituted title.

Procedural History

Nona Calo filed the petition for reconstitution before the Regional Trial Court of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City, Branch 5. Several parties intervened, and the court, with the agreement of the parties, converted the reconstitution proceeding into an action for partition. After trial, the trial court rendered judgment confirming the claims of Nona and most of the intervenors, including the heirs of Jose Calo, and ordered the Register of Deeds of Butuan City to reconstitute the title and annotate the respective shares. It dismissed the intervention of the heirs of Romualda Calo.

Nona appealed to the Court of Appeals, which granted the appeal and affirmed the trial court with modifications, excluding the claim of the heirs of Jose Calo and restoring the share of the heirs of Romualda Calo. The heirs of Jose Calo moved for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

On the third of April, 1926, Original Certificate of Title Number 337 was issued over lot number 306 of the Butuan Cadastre in the names of Alejo Calo, Romualda Calo, Leoncio Peincenaves and Vicente Calo. The original of the title was said to have been lost when the Register of Deeds of the Province of Agusan was destroyed by fire during the Second World War. In June 1990, Nona Calo filed a petition for reconstitution of the title, attaching the partially destroyed owner's duplicate.

The heirs of Jose T. Calo intervened, claiming ownership of one sixth of lot number 306. They alleged that Jose was one of the six children of Ventura Calo, the original owner, and that Jose had been given a one sixth portion. Before the war, Jose gave Teofilo Montilla possession of that portion. Montilla declared it for taxation in 1948 and leased it to Bunawan Sawmill in 1965. In 1989, the heirs of Montilla executed a deed of conveyance and relinquishment in favor of the petitioners, returning and conveying all their rights and interest in the property.

The trial court confirmed the claims of the petitioners and ordered the annotation of their share on the reconstituted title. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the petitioners had presented no document proving that Jose was a son of Ventura, and that they had never questioned the validity of the original title. It excluded their claim and restored the share of the heirs of Romualda Calo. Hence this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in excluding the claim of the heirs of Jose T. Calo to a one sixth portion of lot number 306.
• Whether or not the petitioners established that Jose T. Calo was a son and heir of Ventura Calo, the original owner.
• Whether or not the petitioners may make an adverse claim against the registered owners and their successors in interest after the title had become indefeasible.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the rule on the indefeasibility of a Torrens title, which the Court states as follows:

A Torrens title becomes irrevocable and indefeasible one year after its issuance.

This rule bears on the case because the original certificate of title was issued in 1926, and the registered owners had held it for more than sixty years, so their title could no longer be challenged.

The Court also cites the doctrine on co-heirs who obtain a title through fraud, which it states as follows:

A co-heir who, through fraud, succeeds in obtaining a certificate of title in his name to the prejudice of his co-heirs, is deemed to hold the land in trust for the latter and the action by them to recover on the property does not prescribe.

This doctrine bears on the case because the petitioners failed to show that Jose was fraudulently excluded as a registered owner by his co-heirs.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was without merit. As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, and factual issues are entertained only in exceptional cases. Here, the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals were conflicting, so the Court examined the facts.

On the second issue, the Court found that the petitioners failed to present any document proving that Jose was a son of Ventura, the original owner. They presented only the deed of conveyance and relinquishment. In that instrument, the heirs of Montilla stated that while the property was registered in their father's name, they were unaware why it was so registered. They therefore knew that although they were in possession of the one sixth portion, they did not own it. Thus, what they assigned to the petitioners was possession, not ownership. The Court also noted that the lease contracts showed Montilla was only a witness and not a lessor.

On the third issue, the Court held that since the original certificate of title was issued in 1926, the registered owners had been the owners of lot number 306 for more than sixty years. Their title had become indefeasible and their rights of dominion could no longer be challenged. Only those who were able to trace their rights from the registered owners could annotate their claims on the reconstituted title. The petitioners failed to establish that Jose was fraudulently excluded as a registered owner by his co-heirs.

Doctrine

A Torrens title becomes irrevocable and indefeasible one year after its issuance. After that period, the rights of dominion over the land can no longer be challenged, and only those who trace their rights from the registered owners may annotate their claims on the title.

A co-heir who, through fraud, succeeds in obtaining a certificate of title in his name to the prejudice of his co-heirs is deemed to hold the land in trust for the latter, and the action to recover does not prescribe. But the claimant must first prove that he is indeed a co-heir and that he was fraudulently excluded.

A deed of conveyance and relinquishment executed by persons in possession who admit they do not own the property transfers only possession, not ownership.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, with costs against the petitioners.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a Torrens title becomes indefeasible one year after issuance, and only those who trace their rights from the registered owners may annotate claims on it. Examiners like to use this case to test the indefeasibility of Torrens titles and the requirement of proving heirship in partition and reconstitution proceedings.